Discretizing a Fluctuation Dissipation Theorem

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on discretizing the fluctuation dissipation theorem for white noise in a stochastic differential equation on a 2D sphere. The author integrates over finite volume elements and applies the divergence theorem to transform surface integrals. Key steps involve rewriting surface gradients, evaluating integrals, and addressing the dimensional consistency of the resulting expressions. The author seeks clarification on the evaluation of integral g, particularly regarding its dimensionality and expected outcomes when elements are identical or neighboring. The approach ultimately aims to maintain the conservation law for noise in the discretized model.
onkel_tuca
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Hey!

I want to discretize a fluctuation dissipation theorem for the white noise ζ of a stochastic differential equation on a 2D domain (sphere). For that I integrate over "Finite Volume" elements with area A and A' (see below).

<br /> \begin{eqnarray*} \int_{A} d A \int_{A&#039;} d A&#039; \langle\zeta(\mathbf{r},t)\zeta(\mathbf{r}&#039;,t&#039;)\rangle &amp;=&amp; -2\int_{A} d A \int_{A&#039;} d A&#039;(\nabla_s^{\mathbf{r}})^2\delta(\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}&#039;)\delta(t-t&#039;)\\ &amp;=&amp; 2\int_{A} d A \int_{A&#039;} d A&#039;\nabla_s^{\,\mathbf{r}&#039;}\cdot\nabla_s^{\,\mathbf{r}}\delta(\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}&#039;)\delta(t-t&#039;)\\ &amp;=&amp; 2\int_{A} d A \int_{\partial A&#039;} d S&#039;\left[\nabla_s^{\,\mathbf{r}}\delta(\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}&#039;)\cdot\mathbf{n}&#039;\right]\delta(t-t&#039;)\\ &amp;=&amp; 2\int_{A} d A \nabla_s^{\,\mathbf{r}}\cdot\underbrace{\int_{\partial A&#039;} d S&#039;\left[\delta(\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}&#039;)\mathbf{n}&#039;\right]}_{\mathbf{g}}\delta(t-t&#039;) \end{eqnarray*}<br />

Note that ∇s is the 2D surface gradient (thus only w.r.t. angles on the sphere, not radius). The superscript on ∇s indicates whether differentiation is w.r.t to r or r'. All quantities are assumed to be nondimensionalised to the same length-scale (sphere radius R): dA and dA' each have dimension 'area', each ∇s has dimension '1/length', δ(r-r') has dimension '1/area', thus the whole thing has dimension '1'.

1.) In the first step I rewrite one of the two ∇s w.r.t. r', which gives a negative sign due to the δ(r-r') function.

2.) In the second step I use the divergence theorem for surfaces to transform the surface integral dA' into an integral over the boundary.

3.) Next I write the remaining ∇s operator in front of the integral g, because the operator doesn't depend on r'.

4.) The integral g depends on the postition of the two elements. Assuming the elements are different and not neighbors, the delta function δ(r-r') in g vanishes, because r and r' do never 'meet'. Now, when the elements are identical, A=A', I would assume that g=n, which allows me to use the divergence theorem again for the remaining integral. This gives me 2∫dS n⋅n δ(t-t')=2Lδ(t-t'), where L is the perimeter of the element, measured in lengthscale R. The case of neighboring elements is more complicated.

Am I doing this correct? I'm especially not sure about evaluating integral g: the integral g has dimension '1/lenght' but my assumed result in the case of A=A' is n, which has dimension 1. Actually I was expecting something like 2L2δ(t-t') in the end, which would be consistent with the way I discretize δ(t-t')...

Maybe somebody has an idea...
 
Just in case someone has a similar problem. I ended up with this approach (taken from a preprint):

Here, we discretize the noise ζ in a field equation into element noise vector z, with components zi of the finite volume (FVM) elements i.
We define the correlation function between zi and zj by integrating
\begin{equation}
\langle\zeta(\mathbf{r},t)\zeta(\mathbf{r}',t')\rangle=-2 \nabla_s^2\delta(\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}')\delta(t-t')\;,
\end{equation}
over element areas Ai and Aj:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\langle z_i(t)z_j(t')\rangle\equiv\iint\limits_{A_i}\! d A_i \iint\limits_{ A_j}\! d A_j \langle\zeta(\mathbf{r}_i,t)\zeta(\mathbf{r}_j,t')\rangle\quad\\
%
&&=2\int_{\partial A_i}\limits\! d S_i\, \mathbf{n}_i\cdot\!\int_{\partial A_j}\limits\! d S_j\mathbf{n}_j\,\delta(\mathbf{r}_i-\mathbf{r}_j)\delta(t-t')\label{eq:element_noise_vector2}\\
%
&&=2 \sum_{q} l_{iq}\sum_{p} l_{jp}\delta_{q,p}\mathbf{n}_{iq} \cdot \mathbf{n}_{jp} \delta(t-t')\;.\label{eq:element_noise_vector3}
\end{eqnarray}
In (\ref{eq:element_noise_vector2}) we used the divergence theorem and in (\ref{eq:element_noise_vector3}) we converted the line integrals into sums over the element boundaries.

e8t8s4ch.gif


Here we discretize δ(ri-rj) by partitioning the surface into rhombi of area A (see figure above) and defining:
\begin{equation*}
\delta_{q,p}= \begin{cases}
1/A_{\Diamond} & \mathrm{for} \enspace q=p\;, \\
0 & \mathrm{for} \enspace q\neq p\;,
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
where q and p are the indices of the boundaries of element i and j respectively.
Three cases have to be considered: Supposed the elements i and j are neither identical nor neighbors, δq,p vanishes in (\ref{eq:element_noise_vector3}) for all q and p. For i=j, however,

$$\delta_{q,p}=1/A_{\Diamond}\; and\; \mathbf{n}_{iq} \cdot \mathbf{n}_{jp}=1$$

for all q and p. Finally, for neighboring elements, there is one common boundary where

$$\delta_{q,p}=1/A_{\Diamond}\; and\;\mathbf{n}_{iq} \cdot \mathbf{n}_{jp}=-1$$.

Thus, one finds:
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle\underline{z}(t)\otimes\underline{z}(t')\rangle&=&\frac {2Nl^2}{A_{\Diamond}} \left(\underline{\underline{1}}-\frac 1 N \underline{\underline{Q}}\right) \delta(t-t')\;,
\label{eq:fluc_diss_element_conti}
\end{eqnarray}
where N is the number of element boundaries. Here, Qij=1 if elements i and j are neighbors and zero otherwise. Note that in (\ref{eq:fluc_diss_element_conti}), we assumed constant boundary length l and number of boundaries N. This is reasonable for a refined icosahedron with 642 FVM elements. The form of (\ref{eq:fluc_diss_element_conti}) acknowledges the conservation law for the noise.
 
Last edited:
I think it's easist first to watch a short vidio clip I find these videos very relaxing to watch .. I got to thinking is this being done in the most efficient way? The sand has to be suspended in the water to move it to the outlet ... The faster the water , the more turbulance and the sand stays suspended, so it seems to me the rule of thumb is the hose be aimed towards the outlet at all times .. Many times the workers hit the sand directly which will greatly reduce the water...

Similar threads

Back
Top