Scribd
Upload
219 views5 pages

Elliptic Partial Differential Equations Solution in Cartesian Coordinate System

1) Elliptic partial differential equations (PDEs) describe steady state systems and include the Laplace and Poisson equations. These equations can be solved using finite difference methods in Cartesian coordinates. 2) The Laplace/Poisson equation is discretized using central difference approximations, resulting in a system of algebraic equations that can be solved iteratively. Both the Jacobi and Gauss-Seidel methods are examples of iterative techniques. 3) An example problem is provided to illustrate the solution of the Poisson equation using both the Jacobi and Gauss-Seidel methods. The Gauss-Seidel method converges faster, requiring 9 iterations compared to 13 for the Jacobi method.

Uploaded by

Shivam Sharma
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
219 views5 pages

Elliptic Partial Differential Equations Solution in Cartesian Coordinate System

1) Elliptic partial differential equations (PDEs) describe steady state systems and include the Laplace and Poisson equations. These equations can be solved using finite difference methods in Cartesian coordinates. 2) The Laplace/Poisson equation is discretized using central difference approximations, resulting in a system of algebraic equations that can be solved iteratively. Both the Jacobi and Gauss-Seidel methods are examples of iterative techniques. 3) An example problem is provided to illustrate the solution of the Poisson equation using both the Jacobi and Gauss-Seidel methods. The Gauss-Seidel method converges faster, requiring 9 iterations compared to 13 for the Jacobi method.

Uploaded by

Shivam Sharma
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

 

                  Elliptic Partial Differential Equations 
                                 ( Solution in Cartesian coordinate system) 
         Other category of second order PDE, which are basically used to characterize steady state
systems are called as Elliptic PDE. More prevalent examples are Laplace Equation and Poisson
Equation. Every potential function satisfies Laplace Equation. Another simple example is of heat
transfer in a rectangular plate under certain boundary conditions,where the temperature is to be
determined after a large time under steady state condition.

The Laplace/Poission equation in Cartesian coordinate system is given as

 2u  2u
 2  f ( x, y ) or  2u  f ( x, y ), a  x  b, c  y  d (1.1)
x 2
y

subject to either Dirichlet conditions or Mixed conditions.

Let the domain be subdivided by drawing horizontal and vertical lines at an equal
distance of  y and  x respectively. Let i and j be chosen as dummy variables along x and y
axis for i =1,2,...,N and j =1,2,...,M.             

Replacing both the second order derivatives in eqn.(1.1) by central difference approximations:

ui1, j  2ui , j  ui1, j ui , j 1  2ui , j  ui , j 1


  f (ix, jy) (1.2)
(x) 2 (y) 2

For x  y :

ui1, j  4ui , j  ui1, j  ui , j 1  ui , j 1  (x) 2 f (ix, jx) (1.3)

Equation (1.3) reduces to Laplace equation if f = 0. This equation can be solved iteratively both
explicitly as well as implicitly. The boundary conditions can be written as:

As a special case, Let a  0  c , then if i  1,2,...., N, and j  1,2,....., M


xi  ix, yi  iy
,
the boundary conditions can be written as u 0, j , u N 1, j and u i,0 and u i,M 1 .

Explicit scheme:

Rewritting equation (1.3) as:

(ui 1, j  ui 1, j  ui , j 1  ui , j 1 )


ui , j  (1.4)
4
The computational molecule for (1.4) can be shown as

u i,j+1 (1/4) 

(1/4)u i‐1,j   u i+1,j (1/4) 
u i, j  

u i,j‐1 (1/4) 

We start with here, j  1, i  1,2,....., N . However it involves u i 1, j as well as u i , j 1 which are
unknowns. Hence one has to start with guessed values. Thus an iterative procedure has to be
implemented. The guessed value has to be to chosen carefully in accordance with the boundary
conditions. Now R.H.S. can be handled accordingly with Jacobi’s or Gauss-Seidel approach.
The two possible iterative formulae, thus can be written as:

(uin1, j  uin1, j  uin, j 1  uin, j 1 )


uin, j 1  (1.5)
4
(uin11, j n 1
 ui , j 1  uin1, j  uin, j 1 )
uin, j 1  (1.6)
4

The superscript ‘n’ denotes the number of iterations. Both the formulae have the truncation error
o( x ) 2  o( y ) 2 . The iteration may be carried row-wise or column-wise.

It may be noted that x and y are taken to be small so usually number of nodes are
quite large. But sometimes geometrical symmetry may occur depending on the boundary
conditions. In that case the computational efforts can be reduced.  For example if the boundary
conditions are u (0, y )  u 0 , u ( a, y )  u0 , u ( x,0)  u1 , u ( x, b)  u1 then there is symmetry along
both x & y axis. This symmetry may be helpful in reducing the computations and one has to find
solution only in ¼ of the domain.

 2u  2 u
Example:   0.5 x, defined over 0  x  0.8, 0  y  0.6, with subjected to u  1 at
x 2 y 2
u
x  0, y  0, y  0.6 and  u at x  0.8, Obtain the solution correct to 2d using both
x
equations (1.5) and (1.6) and compare the result.
Solution:

 2u  2u
  0.5 x
x 2 y 2
U sin g equation (1.5) we have
(uin1, j  uin1, j  uin, j 1  uin, j 1 ) 0.50.2  i
3
n 1
u i, j   (1.7)
4 4
 u  u5,1  u3,1
  u  u 1.8
 x  4,1 2  0.2
4 ,1 4 ,1

Starting with assumed values as 0 i.e. u i,0 j  0 and


Putting i  1, j  1 in equation 1.7 

u1n,11 
1 n
4

u1,1  u 2n,1  1.996  1.9
Put i  2, j  1 in equation 1.7 
1

u 2n,11  u1n,1  u 2n,1  u3n,1  0.992
4
 1.10
Put i  3, j  1 in equation 1.7 
1

u3n,11  u 2n,1  u3n,1  u 4n,1  0.998
4
 1.11
Put i  4, j  1 in equation 1.7  and by equation(1.8)

u 4n,11 
5
13

2u3n,1  0.984  1.12

Hence finally we have four equations 1.9  , 1.10  , 1.11 , 1.12  which are solved iteratively.
The values as obtained are shown below:

u1,1 u 2,1 u 3,1 u 4,1


n=0 0.499 0.248 0.2495 0.3785
n=1 0.6858 0.4971 0.4685 0.5704
n=2 0.7947 0.6609 0.6335 0.7388
n=3 0.8629 0.7778 0.7653 0.8658
n=4 0.9092 0.8495 0.8517 0.9672
n=5 0.9384 0.9006 0.9166 1.0336
n=6 0.9587 0.9369 0.9622 1.0835
n=7 0.9729 0.9625 0.9951 1.1186
n=8 0.9829 0.9806 1.0186 1.1439
n=9 0.9899 0.9935 1.0353 1.1620
n = 10 0.9949 1.0027 1.0472 1.1748
n = 11 0.9984 1.0092 1.0557 1.1860
n = 12 1.0009 1.0138 1.0617 1.1905

Hence solution correct to 2d is:

u1,1=1 ; u 2,1=1.01 ; u 3,1=1.06 ; u 4,1=1.19

Now using equation (1.6), we have four final equations:

u1n,11 
4

1 n
u1,1  u 2n,1  1.996 

u 2n,11 
4

1 n1
u1,1  u 2n,1  u3n,1  0.992 

u3n,11 
4

1 n1
u 2,1  u3n,1  u 4n,1  0.998 

u 4n,11 
5
13

2u3n,11  0.984 
These equations are solved iteratively, the results obtained are shown below:

u1,1 u 2,1 u 3,1 u 4,1


n=0 0.499 0.3728 0.3427 0.6421
n=1 0.7169 0.6061 0.6472 0.8763
n=2 0.8297 0.7688 0.8226 1..0112
n=3 0.8986 0.8715 0.9258 1.0906
n=4 0.9415 0.9327 0.9868 1.1375
n=5 0.9676 0.9698 1.0230 1.1654
n=6 0.9833 0.9920 1.0446 1.1820
n=7 0.9828 1.0054 1.0575 1.1919
n=8 1.0020 1.0134 1.0652 1.1948

Hence solution correct to 2d is:

u1,1=1 ; u 2,1=1.01 ; u 3,1=1.06 ; u 4,1=1.19


Hence by equation (1.5),we have to work for 13 iterations where as by equation (1.6),we work
with only 9 iterations. Therefore, equation (1.6) gives faster convergence.

You might also like