Numerical solutions to diffusion equations

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around numerical solutions to reaction-diffusion equations, specifically the advection-diffusion equation and Fisher's equation. Participants explore various numerical methods, their accuracy, and recommendations for resources, while also addressing the implications of different approaches in the context of numerical stability and convergence.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • The original poster (OP) describes their current method using Euler finite difference approximations for time derivatives and Laplacians, seeking more accurate numerical methods.
  • Some participants suggest various numerical methods, including the 4th order Runge-Kutta method, which requires reformulating the second-order equation into a system of first-order equations.
  • Another participant mentions the Crank-Nicholson method as a standard approach for diffusion equations, highlighting its stability and accuracy, while also noting potential oscillations with larger time steps.
  • Concerns are raised about the application of Runge-Kutta methods to partial differential equations, with a request for clarification on its implementation.
  • Several participants recommend resources, including specific books on numerical methods and finite difference schemes, to aid the OP in their research.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants present multiple competing views on the best numerical methods for solving diffusion equations, with no consensus reached on a single preferred approach. The discussion includes varying opinions on the effectiveness and stability of different methods.

Contextual Notes

Some methods discussed may depend on specific conditions such as the nature of the equations being solved, the size of time steps, and the dimensionality of the problem, which remain unresolved in the discussion.

Signifier
Messages
75
Reaction score
0
Hello, the work I am doing now requires numerical solution of several reaction-diffusion equations such as the standard advection diffusion equation (ADE) or IE Fisher's equation. So far I have been using the only method I am familiar with, the simplest one I believe: to express the time derivative as a simple Euler finite difference approximation, and to express the Laplacian using the following approximation:

\frac {d^2C} {dx^2} = \frac{C(x + 1) - 2C(x) + C(x - 1)}{dx^2}}

where C is the density function (the variable diffusing), which is here a 1d matrix and dx is the step size. I approximated dC/dx with a backward difference approximation, and I approximated \frac {d^2C} {dx^2} with a forward difference approximation, then combined these to get the approximation above.

These techniques have worked for what I'm doing fairly well until now, but I would like to try using more accurate numerical methods. I am wondering what a simple, but higher order or more accurate method would be. Can anyone give me a name of a method? Can anyone recommend any good numerical methods books that I might be able to get through my university library or an interlibrary loan?

Also for a more accurate method would I have to keep track for more than just the state of the 1d matrix at the time before? IE would I have to keep track of the last 2 iterations, etc.

Thank you.
 
Technology news on Phys.org
This is not my area. Apologies of this is of no help. That said, I once had a complimentary copy, according to my little card, of:

Numerical Methods for Advection-Diffusion Problems:
Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics
C. B. Vreugdenhil and B. Koren 1993

I do not how well that meets your needs, but university library will have a copy.
 
Strikwerda's "Finite Difference Schemes and Partial Differential Equations" is a general introduction to finite difference methods, with a lot of coverage of convergence, stability, etc.
 
What is the full equation?
 
4-th order Runge-Kutta would be able to work for you in this case. You would need to write the 2nd order equaiton as a coupled 1st order set of equations. Try www.nr.com for the code and google it for the general method.
 
I'm curious as to how you would use R-K for a partial differential equation - I haven't seen that before.

A standard method for the diffusion equation is the Crank-Nicholson method. Basically it's the OP's discretization in space, but a central difference in time, not an Euler forward difference in time.

See http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/329/lectures/node80.html (and lots more Google hits).

C-N is unconditionally stable and 2nd order accurate, but if the time steps are large the solution has numerical oscillations in time between successive steps.

You can kill the oscillations (and reduce the accuracy) by using a backwards difference in time, or something in between. A general difference scheme is

T_i^{n+1} - T_i^n = \theta C\left(T_{i-1}^{n+1}-2\,T_i^{n+1}+T_{i+1}^{n+1}\right) + (1-\theta)C\left(T_{i-1}^n-2\,T_i^n+T_{i+1}^n\right).

with \theta = 1/2 = 1/2 for C-N,

\theta = 1 for backward difference (good for severely nonlinear problems)

\theta = about 0.6 or 2/3 is a reasonable compromise between accuracy and damping the oscillations - can work well for mildly nonlnear problems.

\theta = 0 (Euler method in time) is neither accurate nor stable. Its only "advantage" is it is an explicit method, i.e. you don't need to solve a set of equations at each time step. But for 1 space dimension, the equations are tridiagonal, therefore quick and easy to solve, so that "advantage" isn't worth much.

For 2 or 3 space dimensions, there are more efficient solution methods - e.g. alternating-direction implicit (ADI) methods, methods based on Fourier transforms, etc. But for one space dimension, C-N is pretty good.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K