4
$\begingroup$

I have asked a question in this regard earlier. I am trying to solve the following equation in Polar Co-ordinates:

$$ u_t - (u_{rr} + \frac{1}{r} * u_r + \frac{1}{\theta} * u_{\theta\theta} + bu) = f(r,\theta, t)$$

I am building a finite difference method to tackle the above pde. I have assumed the solution to be of the following form:

$$u(r,\theta, t) = e^{-t} r^2 * Sin(2\theta)$$

Clearly, $\frac{\partial u}{\partial r}|_{r=0} = 0$.

My question is, how do I impose this? I have seen some documents that assume that the solution is axially symmetric at $r=0$ and hence only solve along the radial line while assuming a phantom node to the left of the origin, $u_{-1}$ and finally eliminates that using the FD scheme. For me, even though $\frac{\partial u}{\partial r}|_{r=0}$, my assumed solution is not axially symmetric (about z-axis).

Could someone use this image as an example to explain?

Polar Discretization

Thanks!

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

There are no boundary conditions at $r=0$. Boundary conditions are things you can impose at (a part of) the boundary. In other words, there is freedom: you could choose different values for the boundary values and get different solutions. But in the case of cylindrical or spherical coordinate systems, you cannot impose $u(r=0,\theta)=\text{something}$ or $\frac{\partial u(r=0,\theta)}{\partial r}=\text{something}$. In the first case, this is because for elliptic partial differential equations (and many other equations as well) the solution is only in $H^1$ and taking point values is not well defined. In the latter case it is because you cannot impose anything other than a zero value.

In other words, the condition $\frac{\partial u(r=0,\theta)}{\partial r}=0$ is not a boundary condition. It is a compatibility condition that the solution has to satisfy, but not something you can impose. To be correct, you better choose a numerical scheme that also satisfies this compatibility condition.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Could you give a recommendation for the above PDE that satisfies the compatibility condition? $\endgroup$ – mod0 Dec 14 '14 at 13:45
  • $\begingroup$ Could you let me know where I can read more about compatibility condition? Thanks! $\endgroup$ – mod0 Dec 14 '14 at 21:17
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You misunderstand. It's not a property of the PDE. Every function that is continuous satisfies this condition when you express it in polar coordinates. It is a compatibility condition in the sense that not every function given in terms of $r,\theta$ corresponds to a continuous function when given in terms of $x,y$, but every function given in terms of $r,\theta$ must satisfy $\frac{\partial u(r=0,\theta)}{\partial r}=0$ if it corresponds to a function that is continuous when represented in terms of $x,y$. $\endgroup$ – Wolfgang Bangerth Dec 15 '14 at 4:47
3
$\begingroup$

An idea is not to discretise at the centre (r=0). You put points in pairs near the centre such that each pair forms a line through the centre. Then the finite difference stencils at these points just go through the centre; exactly like in your figure except that $u_0$ should not be put.

In this way, you do not need a boundary condition at $r=0$; the latter is hardly physical but only due to the polar coordinates.

Interestingly, FEM in polar coordinates encounters a difficulty; see How to do FEM in sector elements?

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ So how do I approximate u0 in my grid, would there be no u0 then? $\endgroup$ – mod0 Dec 14 '14 at 13:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Unless there is singular data at $r=0$, we could assume $r=0$ is a Lebegue point, which is true in your case, so that $u_0$ is just average of the $u$ along the small circle centred at $r=0$. $\endgroup$ – Hui Zhang Dec 14 '14 at 17:00

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.