Numerical Solutions to Laplace's equation in a wedge

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around constructing a numerical solution to Laplace's equation in a wedge geometry with specific boundary conditions. Participants explore the challenges of implementing numerical methods, particularly finite difference approximations, and the implications of boundary conditions on the accuracy of the results. The focus includes both theoretical considerations and practical implementation issues.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Meurig describes the setup of the problem, including the governing equations and boundary conditions for the wedge geometry.
  • Meurig reports an issue with increasing numerical error during iterations of the finite difference method, questioning whether the error is indeed due to numerical methods.
  • Meurig later indicates a resolution to the initial error but encounters difficulties with implementing the free surface boundary condition at \bar\theta=0.
  • Meurig shares graphical results comparing numerical and analytical solutions, highlighting discrepancies at the free surface.
  • Another participant questions the correctness of the geometries used in the plots, suggesting that mismatched domains could lead to inaccurate comparisons.
  • This participant also points out that the boundary conditions may not have been properly defined in the analytical solution, which could explain differences in the results.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the source of discrepancies in the numerical and analytical results, with some focusing on boundary condition implementation while others highlight potential issues with the geometries used. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the exact cause of the observed differences.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations related to the definitions of boundary conditions and the geometrical configurations used in their analyses, which may affect the validity of comparisons between numerical and analytical results.

Meurig
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Hi all,

I am trying to construct a numerical solution to the following linear harmonic problem posed in a wedge of interior angle [itex]0<\alpha<pi/2[/itex]

[itex]\bigtriangledown^2\phi(r,\theta), \ r>0, \ -\alpha<\theta<0[/itex]

[itex]\bigtriangledown\phi\cdot\mathbf{n}=0, r>0,\ \theta=-\alpha,[/itex]

[itex]\frac{\pi}{\alpha}\eta(r)-2r\eta_{r}-\frac{1}{r}\phi_{\theta}=0, r>0, \theta=0,[/itex]

[itex](1+\frac{\pi}{\alpha})\phi - 2r\phi_{r}+(1+\sigma\tan(\alpha))\eta =0, r>0, \theta=0,[/itex]

In addition I have the far field boundary conditions:

[itex]\phi=r^{\frac{\pi}{2\alpha}}\sin(\frac{\pi\theta}{2\alpha})[/itex] as [itex]r\rightarrow\inf[/itex]

[itex]\eta=\frac{\pi}{4\alpha}r^{\frac{\pi}{2\alpha}-1}[/itex] as [itex]r\rightarrow\inf[/itex].

And the solution local to the tip of the wedge given by
[itex]\phi=\frac{A\alpha\sin{\alpha}(1+\sigma\tan{\alpha})}{\pi(1+\pi/\alpha)}+rA\cos(\theta+\alpha)[/itex]

[itex]\eta=-\frac{A\alpha\sin\alpha}{\pi}+\eta_1 r[/itex]

where A and [itex]\eta_1[/itex] can be approximated through solving the near field boundary condition
[itex]\phi_\theta +r\tan(\theta+\alpha)\phi_r=0, r=\epsilon, -\alpha<\theta<0[/itex]
So far I have attempted constructing a finite difference approximation in terms of polar coordinates, but as I iterate this scheme the error increases exponentially until phi approaches infinity.

I wonder if anyone has any ideas with regards to what I should be looking to do/what I should be weary of.

Cheers,
Meurig

*edit to correct latex
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
How do you calculate the error, or rather, are you sure numerical error is to blame?

Where does phi become infinite? For instance, it is supposed to be infinite where a source lies.
 
Thanks for the reply, I think I've managed to sort that issue.

The problem I'm having now is in the implementation of the free surface boundary condition (when [itex]\bar\theta=0[/itex]).

This is a graph produced using the analytical result:
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/YGjbspVigI58cmMU02IvXSFxVreWQ4B4jrsToC--TNzEAGf3O0_CjIu6jouvfx1xXE5U6SyLdQ4f9uqKwS55rB6Zs63B3W8ep9A=w1600

And using my method:
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/pwIa6Y4c4oe1P0RrazI5pgpQm5rrEc4azNujnt7HVNh9zDtO078kl4yQrXfZiPOjHswI0qRyc1-XcBdrA3UVFpS2ciMFAwh6G9U=w1600

The complete write up of what I'm doing is here:
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B-bjkxDlh3fxOWQ3NTU5NjctOWZhMi00MDI1LWJhODItOTQ2NGMyNjVlY2I2

Any help would be greatly appreciated,
Meurig
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Meurig said:
Thanks for the reply, I think I've managed to sort that issue.

The problem I'm having now is in the implementation of the free surface boundary condition (when [itex]\bar\theta=0[/itex]).

This is a graph produced using the analytical result:
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/YGjbspVigI58cmMU02IvXSFxVreWQ4B4jrsToC--TNzEAGf3O0_CjIu6jouvfx1xXE5U6SyLdQ4f9uqKwS55rB6Zs63B3W8ep9A=w1600

And using my method:
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/pwIa6Y4c4oe1P0RrazI5pgpQm5rrEc4azNujnt7HVNh9zDtO078kl4yQrXfZiPOjHswI0qRyc1-XcBdrA3UVFpS2ciMFAwh6G9U=w1600

The complete write up of what I'm doing is here:
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B-bjkxDlh3fxOWQ3NTU5NjctOWZhMi00MDI1LWJhODItOTQ2NGMyNjVlY2I2

Any help would be greatly appreciated,
Meurig
Unfortunately I cannot see the graphs and I guess I'm not the only one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Apologies, thanks for bringing that to my attention.

The numerical results:
2mljn.png


The analytical results:
29wsf7q.png


As you can see, the issue lies with the values at the free-surface.

I've never dealt with any boundary conditions involving two separate functions before (here [itex]\hat\phi[/itex] and [itex]\hat\eta[/itex]), if anyone could point me in the direction of some reading material on this matter it would be much appreciated.
 
Your two domains are different. Which of the two is supposed to be the correct geometry? Also, the domains are really off since none of the dimensions match, and neither does the number of boundary segments. Unless you get the domains to have the same contours you cannot compare your results.

I am not familiar with near or far field BCs, but what I can say at this point, is that your plots definitely defer by one boundary condition. Supposing that you are plotting equipotential lines here, in your numerical plot the top horizontal line has a Neumann boundary condition (streamlines are perpendicular to the boundary). You have probably not defined that boundary condition in you analytical solution, which is why your analytical plot looks like this.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K