1
$\begingroup$

I have two equations (coupled), with the variables $T_1$ and $T_2$ and the constant $T_0$, which are (when written unitless, i.e. without prefactors): $$\partial_t T_1 = 1-T_1^3+T_1+\nabla\left(\frac{1}{T_2^{2.5}+T_2^{2.4}}\right)\nabla T_1+\frac{1}{T_2^{2.5}+T_2^{2.4}}\nabla^2T_1$$ and $$ \partial_tT_2=\left(\frac{T_1}{1+T_1^2}\left(T_0-T_2\right)+\nabla\left(\frac{1}{1+T_2+T_2^2}\right)\nabla T_2+\frac{1}{1+T_2+T_2^2}\nabla^2T_2\right)$$ Now my usual approach is to divide such equations into a linear and a nonlinear term, as for the first equation: $$\partial_t T_1 = \underbrace{1-T_1^3+T_1}_{\text{Nonlinear}}+\underbrace{\nabla\left(\frac{1}{T_2^{2.5}+T_2^{2.4}}\right)\nabla T_1+\frac{1}{T_2^{2.5}+T_2^{2.4}}\nabla^2T_1}_{\text{Linear}}$$ and then splitting the linear term up into $T_{x,0}$ and $T_{x,1}$ for the current and next step, as for a reduced equation $$\begin{split} \partial_tT_1&=\nabla T_1\\ &\Rightarrow\\ \frac{T_{1,1}-T_{1,0}}{dt}&=\frac{\nabla T_{1,1}+\nabla T_{1,0}}{2}\\ \left(\frac{1}{dt}-\nabla\right)T_{1,1}&=\left(\frac{1}{dt}+\nabla\right)T_{1,0} \end{split}$$ which then can be solved using a matrix approach and -solver. In order to extend it to $T_2$, I can create a vector of both variables, such that $$\vec{A}\begin{pmatrix} T_{1,1}\\ T_{2,1} \end{pmatrix}=\vec{B}\begin{pmatrix} T_{1,0}\\ T_{2,0} \end{pmatrix}+\begin{pmatrix} \text{Nonlinear}_{T_1}\\ \text{Nonlinear}_{T_2} \end{pmatrix} $$ But now I am stuck how to do that for $$\nabla\left(\frac{1}{T_2^{2.5}+T_2^{2.4}}\right)\nabla T_1$$ Of course I can split it up to $$\begin{split} \nabla\left(\frac{1}{T_2^{2.5}+T_2^{2.4}}\right)&=\frac{\nabla\left(\frac{1}{T_{2,1}^{2.5}+T_{2,1}^{2.4}}\right)+\nabla\left(\frac{1}{T_{2,0}^{2.5}+T_{2,0}^{2.4}}\right)}{2} \end{split}$$ but then I do not know how to integrate it into the matrix equations, after I do not know how to create a matrix $\vec{C}$, such that $$ \vec{C}\cdot T_2=\nabla\left(\frac{1}{T_2^{2.5}+T_2^{2.4}}\right) $$ Is there such a matrix? Or is my whole approach skewed, and should be rethought?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Why do you call it a linear term if it depends nonlinearly on $T_2$? I think you can linearize this operator (and all the other nonlinear things) by taking there $T_2$ from the previous (already computed) time layer. Or you can linearize more accurately, introducing the Jacobian. $\endgroup$ – VorKir Jun 24 '17 at 0:12
  • $\begingroup$ Can you give an example for that? $\endgroup$ – arc_lupus Jun 24 '17 at 5:43
  • $\begingroup$ Would method of line be a possible option? I like it a lot because you only have to worry about the spacial discretisation and let the ODE solver take care of the time-domain. $\endgroup$ – boyfarrell Aug 18 '17 at 17:43
1
$\begingroup$

Linearization of nonlinear PDEs is usually done by using the Frechet derivative of the system. First, let us define $T=\left(\begin{array}{c}T_1\\T_2\end{array}\right)$. Then, in your coupled system you can always replace $T_1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1&0\end{array}\right)T$ and $T_2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0&1\end{array}\right)T$ and write it as a coupled system:

$$\partial_tT= F(T)$$. Now, you are looking for the frechet derivative of $F$. $$F_T\Delta:=\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow0}\frac{F(T+\epsilon\Delta)-F(T)}{\epsilon}$$.

$\endgroup$

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.