Finite difference Method of Wave Equation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the finite difference method applied to the wave equation, specifically focusing on boundary conditions, the interpretation of initial conditions, and the Courant–Friedrichs–Lewy (CFL) condition in a homework context. Participants explore the implications of these concepts on wave propagation and numerical stability.

Discussion Character

  • Homework-related
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the interpretation of the initial condition (x,y,0)=0.01, questioning its location in the grid.
  • Another participant clarifies that the entire sheet is lifted to an amplitude of 0.01 cm in the z direction, affecting all x and y coordinates.
  • There is a discussion about the CFL condition, with one participant calculating a CFL value of 5.0E-5, which is below the recommended minimum of 0.7071.
  • Participants discuss the implications of different CFL values, with one suggesting that a CFL of 0.05 is reasonable, while another points out that the CFL should be less than 0.7.
  • One participant mentions that their results in MATLAB diverged, speculating that the professor may have intentionally designed the problem to challenge critical thinking.
  • There is a correction regarding the calculation of CFL, with one participant realizing they had used inconsistent units, leading to confusion about the time step and propagation speed.
  • Another participant notes the slow propagation speed of the wave and questions whether the professor intended a different unit for the wave speed.
  • Participants express appreciation for the complexity of the problem and the learning opportunity it presents, despite the potential for mistakes in the setup.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the interpretation of the initial condition or the appropriate CFL value. Multiple competing views on the CFL condition and its implications for numerical stability remain unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Discussions include potential limitations related to unit consistency and the interpretation of boundary conditions, which may affect the understanding of the problem setup.

Who May Find This Useful

Students and educators involved in computational physics, numerical methods, or those studying wave equations and their applications in various STEM fields may find this discussion relevant.

Riverbirdy
Messages
30
Reaction score
1
wave.jpg
Hi, Physics forum!
Just a little push of my doubts I hope somebody could help me with my confusion of one of our home works.
I know that all boundary conditions are zero. My doubt is how do I interpret (x,y,0)=0.01 source in the figure? Where is it located in the grid. I am hoping someone could help me with this.
 
Technology news on Phys.org
It's in the z direction (which they call the u direction) :smile:. Basically the whole sheet is lifted up 0.01 cm before t=0 and then the edges are being pulled down suddenly to z=0 and stay there. The disturbance propagates inwards over the xy plane.
 
BvU said:
It's in the z direction (which they call the u direction) :smile:. Basically the whole sheet is lifted up 0.01 cm before t=0 and then the edges are being pulled down suddenly to z=0 and stay there. The disturbance propagates inwards over the xy plane.
So you mean to say at u(0,0,0)=0.01 is the source located?
 
No. The whole sheet is at an 'amplitude' 0.01 in the u-direction. All x, all y.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Riverbirdy
BvU said:
No. The whole sheet is at an 'amplitude' 0.01 in the u-direction. All x, all y.
Presumably for ##0<x <45## and ##0 <y <45##. Otherwise you can't satisfy the other boundary conditions.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Riverbirdy
BvU said:
No. The whole sheet is at an 'amplitude' 0.01 in the u-direction. All x, all y.
Ok, got it. Thank you so much I appreciate it.

Anyhow, I computed for the CFL=5.0E-5 which is recommended to be at least 0.7071. What can you say about this wave?
 
Didn't know about that thing. How do you calculate that ? How about 0.05 ?
 
BvU said:
Didn't know about that thing. How do you calculate that ? How about 0.05 ?
CFL= c Δt/Δx, the Courant–Friedrichs–Lewy (CFL) condition where c- wave propagation constant, Δt & Δx are time step and step size
 
So how about 0.05 as the outcome ?

And: there is an upper bound for C, so 'at least' sounds weird...
 
  • #10
BvU said:
So how about 0.05 as the outcome ?

And: there is an upper bound for C, so 'at least' sounds weird...

CFL for this one is about 5E-5. I tried in matlab, results seems to diverge. My professor might be deliberately giving off problem like this to develop critical thinking. I don't know might be his mistake probably
 
  • #11
Does that mean your time step is ##10^{-3}## s ?
A lot of steps to find out what goes on at ##t=5## s ...
 
  • #12
BvU said:
Does that mean your time step is ##10^{-3}## s ?
A lot of steps to find out what goes on at ##t=5## s ...
Nope, I think not necessarily. Minimizing time step would actually make CFL→0 which is off 0.7071 value. The book says at those values far from 0.7071 solution tends to diverge. Now, if I tend to maintain CFL of 0.7071 I have a time step of actually, 1400 plus seconds.
upload_2017-3-12_11-14-52.png
 
  • #13
BvU said:
Does that mean your time step is ##10^{-3}## s ?
A lot of steps to find out what goes on at ##t=5## s ...
Here's the program results running at Δt=1500 sec at t=10,000 sec
upload_2017-3-12_12-3-26.png
 
  • #14
BvU said:
Didn't know about that thing. How do you calculate that ? How about 0.05 ?
What I meant is that when I calculate ##{c\Delta t\over \Delta x} = {5\times 10^{-4}\times 1\over 0.01 }## I get 0.05 for a time step of 1 s. That is a most reasonable CFL (which of course I Googled before admitting I didn't know about)

And the screen shot tells us CFL needs to be < 0.7, not 'at least' 0.7

With a c of 0.0005 cm/s one expects the boundary value to propagate some 0.0025 cm in 5 seconds. Utterly uninteresting. Hence your second post, I assume.
 
  • #15
My mistake utterly: I used different units for dx and c myself o:) o:)
Riverbirdy said:
My professor might be deliberately giving off problem like this to develop critical thinking
It worked for you. I wrongfooted myself ! :-p
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Riverbirdy
  • #16
Had some coffee. ##
{c\Delta t\over \Delta x} = {5\times 10^{-4}{\rm\ cm/s} \times 1 {\rm\, s}\over 1 {\rm\, cm} } = 5\times 10^{-4}##, not ##5\times 10^{-5}## and that divided into 0.7 gives your 1400 s. Hehe...
Nice tool this is. I would stay on the safe side and work with a cfl of 0.1 cfl max. But the picture tells different: it looks good.

Still, professor picked a membrane with c = 0.0005 cm/s Really slow stuff ! Could he have meant 0.0005 cm/ms ?

Looking at your picture the whole central part of the sheet is at -0.05 cm after 10 ks. Would be interesting to see things happening when the waves meet in the center !
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Riverbirdy
  • #17
BvU said:
Had some coffee. ##
{c\Delta t\over \Delta x} = {5\times 10^{-4}{\rm\ cm/s} \times 1 {\rm\, s}\over 1 {\rm\, cm} } = 5\times 10^{-4}##, not ##5\times 10^{-5}## and that divided into 0.7 gives your 1400 s. Hehe...
Nice tool this is. I would stay on the safe side and work with a cfl of 0.1 cfl max. But the picture tells differrent: it looks good.

Still, professor picked a membrane with c = 0.0005 cm/s Really slow stuff ! Could he have meant 0.0005 cm/ms ?

Looking at your picture the whole central part of the sheet is at -0.05 cm after 10 ks. Would be interesting to see things happening when the waves meet in the center !
Yep, probably he had some mistakes on the units, I guess. But, this type of homework is worth to learn than any regular straight forward one. Probably, its deliberately mistaken. I so appreciate your help. Thank you so much.:smile:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K