Resolution of a PDE with second order Runge-Kutta

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around solving a partial differential equation (PDE) of the form ##\frac{\partial u(x,t)}{\partial t} - \frac{\partial^2 u(x,t)}{\partial x^2}=f(x,t)## using a second order Runge-Kutta method in time, with periodic boundary conditions. Participants explore the application of numerical methods, particularly focusing on the Runge-Kutta method and its suitability for this type of PDE, while considering alternative approaches such as the Crank-Nicholson scheme and Fourier methods.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses difficulty in obtaining correct results when applying the second order Runge-Kutta method to the PDE, questioning whether the method is being applied correctly.
  • Another participant suggests that Runge-Kutta can only solve first order differential equations and proposes converting the PDE into a system of first order equations by introducing a new variable.
  • A different participant acknowledges the first order nature of the PDE in time but notes that the solution appears to evolve too slowly, indicating potential issues with the numerical method used.
  • One participant mentions that the Runge-Kutta method may not be suitable for this problem type and recommends the Crank-Nicholson scheme as a more common approach for such equations.
  • Another participant confirms familiarity with the Crank-Nicholson method but expresses a desire to use Runge-Kutta, referencing a paper that discusses stability with finite differences and higher order Runge-Kutta methods.
  • A participant suggests discretizing the spatial derivative and applying the Runge-Kutta method to the resulting vector equation, indicating a different approach to the problem.
  • One participant notes their use of a Fourier approach for the spatial derivative, indicating potential mistakes in their application of the Runge-Kutta method and expressing uncertainty about their implementation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the best approach to solve the PDE. There are competing views on the suitability of the Runge-Kutta method versus alternative methods like Crank-Nicholson, and uncertainty remains regarding the implementation details and effectiveness of the proposed numerical techniques.

Contextual Notes

Participants express limitations in their understanding of the methods discussed, particularly regarding the application of the Runge-Kutta method to a second order PDE and the implications of using Fourier methods for spatial discretization. There is also mention of potential issues with stability and the evolution of the solution over time.

Telemachus
Messages
820
Reaction score
30
Hi, I want to solve the p.d.e.:

##\frac{\partial u(x,t)}{\partial t} - \frac{\partial^2 u(x,t)}{\partial x^2}=f(x,t)##,

with periodic boundary conditions ##u(x,t)=u(L,t)##.

using a second order Runge-Kutta method in time. However, I am not having the proper results when I apply this method to a particular problem. I don't know if I am doing something wrong in the code, or if I am not applying the Runge-Kutta method properly.

So, this is what I did. First I wrote:
##\frac{\partial u(x,t)}{\partial t}=f(x,t)+\frac{\partial^2 u(x,t)}{\partial x^2}=g(t,x,u)##,

Then I've considered the semi discrete problem, within the Runge-Kutta scheme:

##u^{n+1}=u^n+\Delta t k_2##,

With: ##k_1=g(t^n,x,u^n)=f^n(x)+\frac{\partial^2 u^n(x)}{\partial x^2}##
and: ##k_2=g(t^n+\frac{\Delta t}{2},x,u^n+\frac{\Delta t}{2}k_1)= f^{n+\frac{1}{2}}(x)+\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2}\left( u^n(x)+\frac{\Delta t}{2}k_1 \right)##

So, this is not giving the correct result, and I wanted to know if I am applying the scheme in the proper way. I am assuming all functions are periodic with period L, so I can solve this by means of Fourier methods in the spatial variable.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Runge-Kutta can only solve first order differential equations. To solve a second order equation, you will need to convert it to a system of first order equations. This is done by creating a new variable
$$v=\frac{\partial u}{\partial x}$$
so the original ODE is rewritten as
$$\frac{\partial v}{\partial x}=v-f(x,t)$$
The system is now
$$\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\begin{bmatrix} v\\ u\end{bmatrix}=\begin{bmatrix}v-f(x,t)\\ v\end{bmatrix}$$
This can now be solved with the RK method.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Telemachus
Hi. Thanks for your reply. The PDE I've posted is first order in time, and I am willing to use a Runge Kutta method in the time variable. However, when I do so, while treating the space variable with a spectral method, the solution is like evolving too slow in time, almost not evolving at all.
 
Oh sorry, I misread the first derivative as being with respect to space. You are effectively solving the heat equation with a varying source term. RK is not able to solve problems of this type as far as I know. A more common approach to this problem is the Crank-Nicholson scheme which will give a solution that is second order accurate in both space and time. Are you familiar with this method?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Telemachus
Yes, I've used Crank-Nicolson already for this problem. But anyway, I wanted to use Runge-Kutta, it can be used with what is called the method of lines, where the spatial operator is treated somehow (finite difference, spectral methods, etc.) and one obtains a set of ordinary differential equations. I've found a paper that shows this with finite differences, and a fourth order RK in time. The paper tells how to treat the runge kutta scheme in a way to get stability with no so restrictive time steps. However, I was trying a second order RK, and using other approach in the space variable (I've found the paper after trying, but I think I have done things in the correct way, at least formally, and I posted this to check that in particular).

However, I don't obtain good results, even for a very small ##\Delta t##, and I think that if the problem were stability, the solution should blow up, but what I obtain is that the problem is evolving really really slow in time. Perhaps I should check the program, or if someone sees something in wrong in what I did, that would be great too.

This is the paper I've found where you can see in detail how this is done for finite differences in space: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0307904X77900063
 
Okay, I'm not very familiar with this method but here is my interpretation. It looks like you should first discritize the spatial derivative such that
$$\frac{du_{i}}{dt}=f_{i}+\frac{u_{i+1}-2u_{i}+u_{i-1}}{h_{x}^{2}}$$
This leads to
$$\frac{d}{dt}\mathbf{u}=\mathbf{f}$$
where
$$\mathbf{u}=\begin{bmatrix}u_{1}\\ \vdots\\ u_{i}\\ \vdots\\ u_{N}\end{bmatrix}$$
$$\mathbf{f}=\begin{bmatrix}f(0,t)+u^{\prime}(0,t)\\ \vdots\\ f_{i}+\frac{u_{i+1}-2u_{i}+u_{i-1}}{h_{x}^{2}}\\ \vdots\\ f(L,t)+u^{\prime}(L,t)\end{bmatrix}$$
Then you can apply RK to the vector equation listed above, marching the whole system forward at each time step.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Telemachus
Ok, thanks for your reply. I haven't used finite differences in the spatial derivative, but instead of that a Fourier approach. Tomorrow I'll give you the details of what I did (because I don't have it in here). But basically, I applied a Fourier transform to get the derivatives, following the steps detailed at the beginning of the topic. However, I might have committed a mistake, because as I did it, it looks like if I had started by discretizing the time variable, and I didn't worked it with much care. But what I did is that, I just applied the Runge-Kutta formula in the way detailed above, applying the spatial derivative in Fourier space at each time step.

So, if I remember it right, this is what I did:

##u^{n}=\sum u_k e^{i2 \pi k x}##,
##f^{n}=\sum f_k e^{i2 \pi k x}##,

Then replacing in the equation ##u^{n+1}=f^n+\Delta t k_2## I've obtained the Fourier coefficients for the advanced time step.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
8K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K