Skip to main content

performance tuning - Optimizing a Numerical Laplace Equation Solver


Laplace's Equation is an equation on a scalar in which, given the value of the scalar on the boundaries (the boundary conditions), one can determine the value of the scalar at any point in the region within the boundaries.


Initially, I considered using NDSolve, but I realized that I did not know how to specify the boundary conditions properly. In the example below, my boundary is a square with value 0 along the top, left and right boundary and 1 along the bottom boundary.


Alternatively, the solutions to the equation can be approximated via the Method of Relaxation. In the method, the region is divided into a grid, with the grid squares along the boundary being assigned (fixed) boundary conditions, and the value for the grid squares within the boundary being iteratively calculated by assigning the average values (in the previous time-step) of four grid squares adjacent to it.


My current code is as follows


localmeaner = 
Mean@{#1[[#2 - 1, #3]], #1[[#2 + 1, #3]], #1[[#2, #3 - 1]], #1[[#2, #3 + 1]]} &;

relaxer = ({#[[1]]}~Join~
Table[

{#[[j, 1]]}~Join~
Table[localmeaner[#, j, i], {i, 2, Dimensions[#][[2]] - 1} ]~
Join~{#[[j, Dimensions[#][[2]]]]}, {j, 2,
Dimensions[#][[1]] - 1}]~Join~{#[[Dimensions[#][[1]]]]}) &;

matrixold = Append[ConstantArray[0, {41, 40}], ConstantArray[1, 40]]; (*test matrix fixing the boundary conditions as 0 on the top, left and right boundaries and 1 on the bottom boundary*)

tempmatrix = Nest[relaxer, matrixold, 300]; (*matrix after 300 relaxations*)

localmeaner is a function that takes the average of the four grid squares adjacent to a square.



relaxer is a function that preserves the boundary values but otherwise applies localmeaner onto each of the grid cells to produce their new values based on the average of the four grid cells adjacent to it.



Is there a quicker way to find a numerical solution to the Laplace's Equation given specific boundary conditions?



As a point of interest, one can plot the solution as ArrayPlot[tempmatrix*1., ColorFunction -> "Rainbow"], resulting in the following image, which helps one to visualize the results.


enter image description here


NB: I'm planning to extend this solution to approximations that can work in polar coordinates, Cartesian coordinates in three dimensions and spherical coordinates, so I'm hoping that the answers could be equally general.



Answer



Here is a code that is about 2 orders of magnitude faster. We will use a finite element method to solve the issue at hand. Before we start, note however, that the transition between the Dirichlet values should be smooth.


We use the finite element method because that works for general domains and some meshing utilities exist here and in the links there in. For 3D you can use the build in TetGenLink.



For your rectangular domain, we just create the coordinates and incidences by hand:


<< Developer`
nx = ny = 4;
coordinates =
Flatten[Table[{i, j}, {i, 0., 1., 1/(ny - 1)}, {j, 0., 1.,
1/(nx - 1)}], 1];
incidents =
Flatten[Table[{j*nx + i,
j*nx + i + 1, (j - 1)*nx + i + 1, (j - 1)*nx + i}, {i, 1,
nx - 1}, {j, 1, ny - 1}], 1];


(* triangulate the quad incidences *)
incidents =
ToPackedArray[
incidents /. {i1_?NumericQ, i2_, i3_, i4_} :>
Sequence[{i1, i2, i3}, {i3, i4, i1}]];

Graphics[GraphicsComplex[
coordinates, {EdgeForm[Gray], FaceForm[], Polygon[incidents]}]]


enter image description here


Now, we create the finite element symbolically and compile that:


tmp = Join[ {{1, 1, 1}}, 
Transpose[Quiet[Array[Part[var, ##] &, {3, 2}]]]];
me = {{0, 0}, {1, 0}, {0, 1}};
p = Inverse[tmp].me;
help = Transpose[ (p.Transpose[p])*Abs[Det[tmp]]/2];

diffusion2D =
With[{code = help},

Compile[{{coords, _Real, 2}, {incidents, _Integer, 1}}, Block[{var},
var = coords[[incidents]];
code
]
, RuntimeAttributes -> Listable
(*,CompilationTarget\[Rule]"C"*)]];

AbsoluteTiming[allElements = diffusion2D[coordinates, incidents];]

You can not do this in FORTRAN! For this specific problem the element contributions are all the same, so that could be utilized, but since you wanted a somewhat more general approach I am leaving it as it is.



To assemble the elements into a system matrix:


matrixAssembly[ values_, pos_, dim_] := Block[{matrix, p},
System`SetSystemOptions[
"SparseArrayOptions" -> {"TreatRepeatedEntries" -> 1}];
matrix = SparseArray[ pos -> Flatten[ values], dim];
System`SetSystemOptions[
"SparseArrayOptions" -> {"TreatRepeatedEntries" -> 0}];
Return[ matrix]]

pos = Compile[{{inci, _Integer, 2}},

Flatten[Map[Outer[List, #, #] &, inci], 2]][incidents];

dofs = Max[pos];

AbsoluteTiming[
stiffness = matrixAssembly[ allElements, pos, dofs] ]

The last part that is missing are the Dirichlet conditions. We modify the system matrix in place for that:


SetAttributes[dirichletBoundary, HoldFirst]
dirichletBoundary[ {load_, matrix_}, fPos_List, fValue_List] :=

Block[{},
load -= matrix[[All, fPos]].fValue;
load[[fPos]] = fValue;
matrix[[All, fPos]] = matrix[[fPos, All]] = 0.;
matrix += SparseArray[
Transpose[ {fPos, fPos}] -> Table[ 1., {Length[fPos]}],
Dimensions[matrix], 0];
]

load = Table[ 0., {dofs}];

diriPos1 = Position[coordinates, {_, 0.}];
diriVals1 = Table[1., {Length[diriPos1]}];
diriPos2 =
Position[coordinates, ({_,
1.} | {1., _?(# > 0 &)} | {0., _?(# > 0 &)})];
diriVals2 = Table[0., {Length[diriPos2]}];
diriPos = Flatten[Join[diriPos1, diriPos2]];
diriVals = Join[diriVals1, diriVals2];
dirichletBoundary[{load, stiffness}, diriPos, diriVals]
AbsoluteTiming[

solution = LinearSolve[ stiffness, load(*, Method\[Rule]"Krylov"*)]; ]

When I use your code on my laptop it has about 1600 quads and takes about 6 seconds. When I run this code with nx = ny = 90; (which gives about 16000 triangles) it runs in about 0.05 seconds. Note that the element computation and matrix assembly take less time than the LinearSolve. That's the way things should be. The result can be visualized:


Graphics[GraphicsComplex[coordinates, Polygon[incidents], 
VertexColors ->
ToPackedArray@(List @@@ (ColorData["Rainbow"][#] & /@
solution))]]

enter image description here


For the 3D case have a look here.



Hope this helps.


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....