Finite Difference Scheme for non-linear PDE











up vote
1
down vote

favorite
1












I've been trying to find a finite difference scheme for the 1D partial differential equation as follows:



$frac{partial F}{partial t}=frac{partial}{partial x} (( frac{partial F}{partial x})^k)$



However I have not found any material on how to construct one for a non-linear function such as this one. I have tried a few methods however without knowledge of how the steps in space occur in a function such as this I am unsure of their accuracy. Any comment on the stability of such a scheme would also be very useful.



Thanks!










share|cite|improve this question


















  • 1




    What are the boundary/initial conditions?
    – Yuriy S
    Nov 14 at 17:52










  • Any Neumann, Dirichlet or other boundary conditions are good! They would all be useful in understanding how it works.
    – user536082
    Nov 14 at 17:57















up vote
1
down vote

favorite
1












I've been trying to find a finite difference scheme for the 1D partial differential equation as follows:



$frac{partial F}{partial t}=frac{partial}{partial x} (( frac{partial F}{partial x})^k)$



However I have not found any material on how to construct one for a non-linear function such as this one. I have tried a few methods however without knowledge of how the steps in space occur in a function such as this I am unsure of their accuracy. Any comment on the stability of such a scheme would also be very useful.



Thanks!










share|cite|improve this question


















  • 1




    What are the boundary/initial conditions?
    – Yuriy S
    Nov 14 at 17:52










  • Any Neumann, Dirichlet or other boundary conditions are good! They would all be useful in understanding how it works.
    – user536082
    Nov 14 at 17:57













up vote
1
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
1
down vote

favorite
1






1





I've been trying to find a finite difference scheme for the 1D partial differential equation as follows:



$frac{partial F}{partial t}=frac{partial}{partial x} (( frac{partial F}{partial x})^k)$



However I have not found any material on how to construct one for a non-linear function such as this one. I have tried a few methods however without knowledge of how the steps in space occur in a function such as this I am unsure of their accuracy. Any comment on the stability of such a scheme would also be very useful.



Thanks!










share|cite|improve this question













I've been trying to find a finite difference scheme for the 1D partial differential equation as follows:



$frac{partial F}{partial t}=frac{partial}{partial x} (( frac{partial F}{partial x})^k)$



However I have not found any material on how to construct one for a non-linear function such as this one. I have tried a few methods however without knowledge of how the steps in space occur in a function such as this I am unsure of their accuracy. Any comment on the stability of such a scheme would also be very useful.



Thanks!







pde numerical-methods






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Nov 14 at 17:28









user536082

61




61








  • 1




    What are the boundary/initial conditions?
    – Yuriy S
    Nov 14 at 17:52










  • Any Neumann, Dirichlet or other boundary conditions are good! They would all be useful in understanding how it works.
    – user536082
    Nov 14 at 17:57














  • 1




    What are the boundary/initial conditions?
    – Yuriy S
    Nov 14 at 17:52










  • Any Neumann, Dirichlet or other boundary conditions are good! They would all be useful in understanding how it works.
    – user536082
    Nov 14 at 17:57








1




1




What are the boundary/initial conditions?
– Yuriy S
Nov 14 at 17:52




What are the boundary/initial conditions?
– Yuriy S
Nov 14 at 17:52












Any Neumann, Dirichlet or other boundary conditions are good! They would all be useful in understanding how it works.
– user536082
Nov 14 at 17:57




Any Neumann, Dirichlet or other boundary conditions are good! They would all be useful in understanding how it works.
– user536082
Nov 14 at 17:57










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
0
down vote













This is how I would try to solve it numerically (mind, I haven't worked with problems like that).



Differentiate w.r.t. $x$:



$$frac{partial}{partial x}frac{partial F}{partial t}=frac{partial^2}{partial x^2} left(left( frac{partial F}{partial x}right)^k right)$$



Change the order of the derivatives on the l.h.s. and introduce a new function:



$$frac{partial F}{partial x}=G$$



Now we are solving:



$$frac{partial G}{partial t}=frac{partial^2}{partial x^2} G^k$$



This could be done with the usual second order finite difference scheme.



Suppose we get a numerical solution $G(x,t) approx G_{nm}$, where the indices are for time and space grid points.



Now we need to solve:



$$frac{partial F}{partial x}=G$$



This is again, a very standard problem for any first order finite difference scheme. In an explicit way, for example:



$$frac{F_{n,m+1}-F_{n,m}}{Delta x}=G_{n,m}$$





Important note: the boundary/initial conditions might change this scheme a little. We should be careful not to lose some solutions or introduce spurious ones, because we have taken an extra $x$ derivative.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Thanks that is useful, I can see how I would copmute a forwards step in space using this scheme, however how would I obtain values for F in future times?
    – user536082
    Nov 14 at 19:08










  • @user536082, but you already know them from solving for $G$? Notice that the index $n$ doesn't change...
    – Yuriy S
    Nov 14 at 19:09










  • Ah I think I understand, just to make sure the n index is the time correct?
    – user536082
    Nov 14 at 19:13










  • @user536082, yes, it's the time
    – Yuriy S
    Nov 14 at 19:14












  • I'm sorry I thought I understood, but I am still stuck, could you outline a little more how I could get an expression for $$F_{n+1,m}$$ using only information from the timeperiod n. I may be missing something very obvious as I can't see how this is possible based on the previous.
    – user536082
    Nov 14 at 20:00











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














 

draft saved


draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2998564%2ffinite-difference-scheme-for-non-linear-pde%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
0
down vote













This is how I would try to solve it numerically (mind, I haven't worked with problems like that).



Differentiate w.r.t. $x$:



$$frac{partial}{partial x}frac{partial F}{partial t}=frac{partial^2}{partial x^2} left(left( frac{partial F}{partial x}right)^k right)$$



Change the order of the derivatives on the l.h.s. and introduce a new function:



$$frac{partial F}{partial x}=G$$



Now we are solving:



$$frac{partial G}{partial t}=frac{partial^2}{partial x^2} G^k$$



This could be done with the usual second order finite difference scheme.



Suppose we get a numerical solution $G(x,t) approx G_{nm}$, where the indices are for time and space grid points.



Now we need to solve:



$$frac{partial F}{partial x}=G$$



This is again, a very standard problem for any first order finite difference scheme. In an explicit way, for example:



$$frac{F_{n,m+1}-F_{n,m}}{Delta x}=G_{n,m}$$





Important note: the boundary/initial conditions might change this scheme a little. We should be careful not to lose some solutions or introduce spurious ones, because we have taken an extra $x$ derivative.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Thanks that is useful, I can see how I would copmute a forwards step in space using this scheme, however how would I obtain values for F in future times?
    – user536082
    Nov 14 at 19:08










  • @user536082, but you already know them from solving for $G$? Notice that the index $n$ doesn't change...
    – Yuriy S
    Nov 14 at 19:09










  • Ah I think I understand, just to make sure the n index is the time correct?
    – user536082
    Nov 14 at 19:13










  • @user536082, yes, it's the time
    – Yuriy S
    Nov 14 at 19:14












  • I'm sorry I thought I understood, but I am still stuck, could you outline a little more how I could get an expression for $$F_{n+1,m}$$ using only information from the timeperiod n. I may be missing something very obvious as I can't see how this is possible based on the previous.
    – user536082
    Nov 14 at 20:00















up vote
0
down vote













This is how I would try to solve it numerically (mind, I haven't worked with problems like that).



Differentiate w.r.t. $x$:



$$frac{partial}{partial x}frac{partial F}{partial t}=frac{partial^2}{partial x^2} left(left( frac{partial F}{partial x}right)^k right)$$



Change the order of the derivatives on the l.h.s. and introduce a new function:



$$frac{partial F}{partial x}=G$$



Now we are solving:



$$frac{partial G}{partial t}=frac{partial^2}{partial x^2} G^k$$



This could be done with the usual second order finite difference scheme.



Suppose we get a numerical solution $G(x,t) approx G_{nm}$, where the indices are for time and space grid points.



Now we need to solve:



$$frac{partial F}{partial x}=G$$



This is again, a very standard problem for any first order finite difference scheme. In an explicit way, for example:



$$frac{F_{n,m+1}-F_{n,m}}{Delta x}=G_{n,m}$$





Important note: the boundary/initial conditions might change this scheme a little. We should be careful not to lose some solutions or introduce spurious ones, because we have taken an extra $x$ derivative.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Thanks that is useful, I can see how I would copmute a forwards step in space using this scheme, however how would I obtain values for F in future times?
    – user536082
    Nov 14 at 19:08










  • @user536082, but you already know them from solving for $G$? Notice that the index $n$ doesn't change...
    – Yuriy S
    Nov 14 at 19:09










  • Ah I think I understand, just to make sure the n index is the time correct?
    – user536082
    Nov 14 at 19:13










  • @user536082, yes, it's the time
    – Yuriy S
    Nov 14 at 19:14












  • I'm sorry I thought I understood, but I am still stuck, could you outline a little more how I could get an expression for $$F_{n+1,m}$$ using only information from the timeperiod n. I may be missing something very obvious as I can't see how this is possible based on the previous.
    – user536082
    Nov 14 at 20:00













up vote
0
down vote










up vote
0
down vote









This is how I would try to solve it numerically (mind, I haven't worked with problems like that).



Differentiate w.r.t. $x$:



$$frac{partial}{partial x}frac{partial F}{partial t}=frac{partial^2}{partial x^2} left(left( frac{partial F}{partial x}right)^k right)$$



Change the order of the derivatives on the l.h.s. and introduce a new function:



$$frac{partial F}{partial x}=G$$



Now we are solving:



$$frac{partial G}{partial t}=frac{partial^2}{partial x^2} G^k$$



This could be done with the usual second order finite difference scheme.



Suppose we get a numerical solution $G(x,t) approx G_{nm}$, where the indices are for time and space grid points.



Now we need to solve:



$$frac{partial F}{partial x}=G$$



This is again, a very standard problem for any first order finite difference scheme. In an explicit way, for example:



$$frac{F_{n,m+1}-F_{n,m}}{Delta x}=G_{n,m}$$





Important note: the boundary/initial conditions might change this scheme a little. We should be careful not to lose some solutions or introduce spurious ones, because we have taken an extra $x$ derivative.






share|cite|improve this answer














This is how I would try to solve it numerically (mind, I haven't worked with problems like that).



Differentiate w.r.t. $x$:



$$frac{partial}{partial x}frac{partial F}{partial t}=frac{partial^2}{partial x^2} left(left( frac{partial F}{partial x}right)^k right)$$



Change the order of the derivatives on the l.h.s. and introduce a new function:



$$frac{partial F}{partial x}=G$$



Now we are solving:



$$frac{partial G}{partial t}=frac{partial^2}{partial x^2} G^k$$



This could be done with the usual second order finite difference scheme.



Suppose we get a numerical solution $G(x,t) approx G_{nm}$, where the indices are for time and space grid points.



Now we need to solve:



$$frac{partial F}{partial x}=G$$



This is again, a very standard problem for any first order finite difference scheme. In an explicit way, for example:



$$frac{F_{n,m+1}-F_{n,m}}{Delta x}=G_{n,m}$$





Important note: the boundary/initial conditions might change this scheme a little. We should be careful not to lose some solutions or introduce spurious ones, because we have taken an extra $x$ derivative.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Nov 14 at 18:29

























answered Nov 14 at 18:20









Yuriy S

15.5k433115




15.5k433115












  • Thanks that is useful, I can see how I would copmute a forwards step in space using this scheme, however how would I obtain values for F in future times?
    – user536082
    Nov 14 at 19:08










  • @user536082, but you already know them from solving for $G$? Notice that the index $n$ doesn't change...
    – Yuriy S
    Nov 14 at 19:09










  • Ah I think I understand, just to make sure the n index is the time correct?
    – user536082
    Nov 14 at 19:13










  • @user536082, yes, it's the time
    – Yuriy S
    Nov 14 at 19:14












  • I'm sorry I thought I understood, but I am still stuck, could you outline a little more how I could get an expression for $$F_{n+1,m}$$ using only information from the timeperiod n. I may be missing something very obvious as I can't see how this is possible based on the previous.
    – user536082
    Nov 14 at 20:00


















  • Thanks that is useful, I can see how I would copmute a forwards step in space using this scheme, however how would I obtain values for F in future times?
    – user536082
    Nov 14 at 19:08










  • @user536082, but you already know them from solving for $G$? Notice that the index $n$ doesn't change...
    – Yuriy S
    Nov 14 at 19:09










  • Ah I think I understand, just to make sure the n index is the time correct?
    – user536082
    Nov 14 at 19:13










  • @user536082, yes, it's the time
    – Yuriy S
    Nov 14 at 19:14












  • I'm sorry I thought I understood, but I am still stuck, could you outline a little more how I could get an expression for $$F_{n+1,m}$$ using only information from the timeperiod n. I may be missing something very obvious as I can't see how this is possible based on the previous.
    – user536082
    Nov 14 at 20:00
















Thanks that is useful, I can see how I would copmute a forwards step in space using this scheme, however how would I obtain values for F in future times?
– user536082
Nov 14 at 19:08




Thanks that is useful, I can see how I would copmute a forwards step in space using this scheme, however how would I obtain values for F in future times?
– user536082
Nov 14 at 19:08












@user536082, but you already know them from solving for $G$? Notice that the index $n$ doesn't change...
– Yuriy S
Nov 14 at 19:09




@user536082, but you already know them from solving for $G$? Notice that the index $n$ doesn't change...
– Yuriy S
Nov 14 at 19:09












Ah I think I understand, just to make sure the n index is the time correct?
– user536082
Nov 14 at 19:13




Ah I think I understand, just to make sure the n index is the time correct?
– user536082
Nov 14 at 19:13












@user536082, yes, it's the time
– Yuriy S
Nov 14 at 19:14






@user536082, yes, it's the time
– Yuriy S
Nov 14 at 19:14














I'm sorry I thought I understood, but I am still stuck, could you outline a little more how I could get an expression for $$F_{n+1,m}$$ using only information from the timeperiod n. I may be missing something very obvious as I can't see how this is possible based on the previous.
– user536082
Nov 14 at 20:00




I'm sorry I thought I understood, but I am still stuck, could you outline a little more how I could get an expression for $$F_{n+1,m}$$ using only information from the timeperiod n. I may be missing something very obvious as I can't see how this is possible based on the previous.
– user536082
Nov 14 at 20:00


















 

draft saved


draft discarded



















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2998564%2ffinite-difference-scheme-for-non-linear-pde%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Plaza Victoria

Puebla de Zaragoza

Musa