Thread View: sci.math.num-analysis
2 messages
2 total messages
Started by ramesh
Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:43
nonlinear wave equation on a sphere
Author: ramesh
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:43
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:43
16 lines
1094 bytes
1094 bytes
I was wondering about how one numerically solves a nonlinear pde (like the wave equation, or a nonlinear Helmholz equation) on a closed object like a sphere. My previous experience has been that a spectral method (like ORSZAG) is required. This is eeasy to do using Fourier series and the appropriate trignoetric identities. However, on a sphere, sphereical harmonics have to be used, for which there aren't the same type of identities. Does anyone know how to set up a finite difference scheme for a closed object like a sphere? Thanks, Ramesh Srinivasan ramesh@mv3600.bmen.tulane.edu
Re: nonlinear wave equation on a sphere
Author: Jonathan Thornburg
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 19:14
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 19:14
87 lines
5124 bytes
5124 bytes
In article <0096373F.07D40080@MV3600.BMEN.TULANE.EDU>
ramesh@MV3600.BMEN.TULANE.EDU writes:
> I was wondering about how one numerically solves a nonlinear pde
>(like the wave equation, or a nonlinear Helmholz equation) on a closed
>object like a sphere.
>
> My previous experience has been that a spectral method (like
>ORSZAG) is required. This is eeasy to do using Fourier series and the
>appropriate trignoetric identities. However, on a sphere, sphereical harmonics
>have to be used, for which there aren't the same type of identities.
I know this isn't what you wanted, but permit me to suggest
\mybibitem{Boyd, J. P.}{1989}
``Chebyshev \& Fourier Spectral Methods'',
Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Engineering {\bf 49},
Springer-Verlag,
ISBN 3-540-51487-2 (Berlin),0-387-51487-2 (New York).
as being a truly superb book on this topic, with a very nice chapter
on "sphere" problems. It also has quite a bit of useful stuff on
finite differencing methods.
> Does anyone know how to set up a finite difference scheme for a
>closed object like a sphere?
The basic answer is "very carefully" :-).
Seriously, it's tricky.
There are several ways to do it, depending on how many dimensions
your "sphere" is in, and how many of those you're treating numerically
(eg axisymmetry in 3D means you only treat r and theta numerically;
phi can be done analytically). There are several problems which arise
if you just plunge ahead with a straightforward FD scheme in (r,theta,phi).
In the following laundary list of troubles I have personally struggled
with, I'll assume 3D, and I'll also assume that the underlying PDEs are
nonsingular in (x,y,z) coordinates:
- The continuum PDEs in polar coordinates probably have 0/0 terms
on the $z$ axis. You can generally fix these via L'Hopital's rule.
- If nature is unkind to you, the continuum PDEs in polar coordinates
may have $\infty - \infty$ cancellations on the $z$ axis! These
can in theory be fixed, but it may take a lot of algebraic manipulation
to do so. (Perhaps try a symbolic algebra system?)
- If you have *tensor* PDEs, you may well have to worry about regularity
conditions on the $z$ axis. Enforcing these numerically is very
tricky. For an example of this (in numerical general relativity), see
\mybibitem{Evans, C. R.}{1984}
``A Method for Numerical Relativity:
Simulation of Axisymmetric Gravitational Collapse
and Gravitational Radiation Generation'',
University of Texas at Austin Ph.D Thesis,
University Microfilms Order \#DA 85-08264.
\mybibitem{Evans, C. R.}{1989}
``Enforcing the Momentum Constraints
During Axisymmetric Spacelike Simulations'',
pp.~194--205 in \mycite{Evans, Finn, and Hobill}{1989}.
\mybibitem{Evans, C. R., Finn, L. S., and Hobill, D. W., Eds.}{1989}
``Frontiers in Numerical Relativity'',
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (UK),
ISBN 0-521-36666-6.
- In axisymmetry there is another way to regularize polar-coordinate
PDEs, involving a local coordinate transformation to a hybrid
rectangular/polar coordinate system, but it's too (ugly and)
complicated to describe here. Contact me for the relevant appendix
to my thesis if you're interested.
- For initial value (hyperbolic/parabolic) problems,
assuming you get a regular system of FD equations on an (r,theta,phi)
type grid, any explicit time integration scheme is going to suffer
from a severe CFL time step limit caused by the close spacing of
the grid points at near-polar latitudes. Boyd talks about ways
to fix this, and gives references to some of the tricks people
use in numerical weather forecasting codes.
- Under some circumstances you can just ignore the spherical symmetry
and use xyz coordinates and grids. This is easy to program and
mostly avoids the above hassles, but may be expensive. You also
have to worry much more about stability in hyperbolic/parabolic
problems.
All in all, it's a messy subject. Alas, nature is full of
topologically-2-spherical objects...
- Jonathan Thornburg
<jonathan@geop.ubc.ca> through mid-November 92, then
<jonathan@einstein.ph.utexas.edu> or <jonathan@hermes.chpc.utexas.edu>
[for a few more months] UBC / {Geophysics & Astronomy, Physics}
[then through Aug/92] U of Texas at Austin / Physics / Center for Relativity
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads