Implicit finite difference method

In summary: I got the same result as you - I have no idea what I did earlier... :oOk, thank you! :)In summary, we discussed an implicit finite difference method for the wave equation. At step 0, we set the initial values for $W_j^0$. At step 1, we calculated the values for $W_j^1$ using the formula provided. For subsequent steps, we used a linear system to find the values for $W_j^{n+1}$, where $n$ ranges from 1 to N-1. We also discussed the exact solution and the approximations for various values of J and N, as well as the errors. Finally, we reviewed how to calculate the
  • #1
mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
5,049
7
Hey! :eek:

I have a implicit finite difference method for the wave equation.

At step 0, we set: $W_j^0=v(x_j), j=0,...,J$

At the step 1, we set: $W_j^1=v(x_j)+Dtu(x_j)+\frac{Dt^2}{2}(\frac{v(x_{j-1})-2v(x_j)+v(x_{j+1})}{h^2}+f(x_j,0)), j=0,...,J$

Can that be that at the step 1 $j$ begins from $0$ and ends at $J$?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
mathmari said:
Hey! :eek:

I have a implicit finite difference method for the wave equation.

At step 0, we set: $W_j^0=v(x_j), j=0,...,J$

At the step 1, we set: $W_j^1=v(x_j)+Dtu(x_j)+\frac{Dt^2}{2}(\frac{v(x_{j-1})-2v(x_j)+v(x_{j+1})}{h^2}+f(x_j,0)), j=0,...,J$

Can that be that at the step 1 $j$ begins from $0$ and ends at $J$?

Possibly, or perhaps $j=1..J-1$, so that all values are defined.
Otherwise you will need values for $v(x_{-1})$ and $v(x_{J+1})$ that are currently not defined.
 
  • #3
I like Serena said:
Possibly, or perhaps $j=1..J-1$, so that all values are defined.
Otherwise you will need values for $v(x_{-1})$ and $v(x_{J+1})$ that are currently not defined.

Ok! Thank you! (Happy)
 
  • #4
I have also an other question..

I want to implement a program in C for this method..

The wave equation is:
$$w_{tt}(x,t)=w_{xx}(x,t)+f(x,t), \forall (x,t) \in [0,1]x[0,1]$$
$$w(0,t)=w(1,t)=0, \forall t \in [0,1]$$
$$w_t(x,0)=u(x), \forall x \in [0,1]$$
$$w(x,0)=v(x), \forall x \in [0,1]$$

where $u(0)=u(1)=0$

The method is:
At step 0, we set: $W_j^0=v(x_j), j=0,...,J$

At the step 1, we set: $$W_j^1=v(x_j)+Dtu(x_j)+\frac{Dt^2}{2}(\frac{v(x_{j-1})-2v(x_j)+v(x_{j+1})}{h^2}+f(x_j,0)), j=1,...,J-1$$

For $n=1,...,N-1$ we do the following:
At the step n+1 we find the $(W_j^{n+1})_{j=1}^{J-1}$ as the solution of the linear system from:
$$\frac{W_j^{n+1}-2W_j^n+W_j^{n-1}}{Dt^2}=\frac{W_{j-1}^{n+1}-2W_j^{n+1}+W_{j+1}^{n+1}}{2h^2}+\frac{W_{j-1}^{n-1}-2W_j^{n-1}+W_{j+1}^{n-1}}{2h^2}+f(x_j,t_n), j=1,..,.J-1$$
$W_0^{n+1}=W_J^{n+1}=0$

The approximations $(W_j^{n-1})_{j=1}^{J-1}$ are saved at the vector $A$, and the $(W_j^{n})_{j=1}^{J-1}$ at $B$.

So we could find the approximations by solving a system of the form $Ax=b$, right?
I calculated the $b$ as followed:
Code: 
for(j=1; j<J-1; j++){
	b[j-1]=A[j-1]/(2*h*h)-A[j]*(h*h+Dt*Dt)/(Dt*Dt*h*h)+A[j+1]/(2*h*h)+2*B[j-1]/(Dt*Dt)+f(xx(j,J),tn(n,N));
}
b[J-2]=A[J-2]/(2*h*h)-A[J-1]*(h*h+Dt*Dt)/(Dt*Dt*h*h)+2*B[J-2]/(Dt*Dt)+f(xx(J-1,J),tn(n,N));
Is this correct?

$v(x)=0, u(x)= \pi x (1-x)$
$f(x,t)= \pi^2 x^2 (x-1)sin(\pi x t)+2 \pi t cos(\pi x t)+(1-x) \pi^2 t^2 sin( \pi x t)$
the exact solution is $w(x,t)=sin( \pi x t)(1-x)$

Also I want to find the errors ($max_{1 \leq n \leq N} ( max_{1 \leq j \leq J-1} |W_j^n-w(x_j,t_n)|)$).These are what I've found:
For $J=N=10: 0.099211$
For $J=N=20: 0.049875$
Are these errors correct for these J and N?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
To check if my program is correct, could you tell me if the following results of the approximations for $J=N=5$ are right?

n=1:
0.198483
0.292070
0.283378
0.181988

n=2:
0.269957
0.424158
0.434060
0.326570

n=3:
0.329534
0.569906
0.628201
0.522819

n=4:
0.397004
0.727531
0.811541
0.764543
 
  • #6
Mmh, for $n=1$ I get:
$$W^1 = \begin{bmatrix}
0 \\
0.100531 \\
0.150796 \\
0.150796 \\
0.100531 \\
0
\end{bmatrix}$$
 
  • #7
I like Serena said:
Mmh, for $n=1$ I get:
$$W^1 = \begin{bmatrix}
0 \\
0.100531 \\
0.150796 \\
0.150796 \\
0.100531 \\
0
\end{bmatrix}$$

Ok.. But when we solve the system do we not get as answer the approximations $W^{n+1}$? So for $n=1$ we get $W^2$, or did I misunderstand it?
This $W^1$ is from the step 1, right?
 
  • #8
mathmari said:
Ok.. But when we solve the system do we not get as answer the approximations $W^{n+1}$? So for $n=1$ we get $W^2$, or did I misunderstand it?
This $W^1$ is from the step 1, right?

Yep.

For more steps, I get:
$$W_{j=1..J-1}^n = \begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0.100531 & 0.167758 & 0.190311 & 0.183852 & 0.178421 \\
0 & 0.150796 & 0.252344 & 0.279416 & 0.244453 & 0.191595 \\
0 & 0.150796 & 0.246062 & 0.256217 & 0.191528 & 0.095445 \\
0 & 0.100531 & 0.156116 & 0.146507 & 0.08322 & -0.002342 \\
\end{bmatrix}$$

Hmm... that is not the same as what you have... :eek:
 
  • #9
I like Serena said:
Yep.

For more steps, I get:
$$W_{j=1..J-1}^n = \begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0.100531 & 0.167758 & 0.190311 & 0.183852 & 0.178421 \\
0 & 0.150796 & 0.252344 & 0.279416 & 0.244453 & 0.191595 \\
0 & 0.150796 & 0.246062 & 0.256217 & 0.191528 & 0.095445 \\
0 & 0.100531 & 0.156116 & 0.146507 & 0.08322 & -0.002342 \\
\end{bmatrix}$$

Hmm... that is not the same as what you have... :eek:

I calculated the approximation $W_j^2$ by hand and I get the following system ( I hope I made no mistakes at the calculations :eek: ):
$\begin{bmatrix}
50 & -12.5 & 0 & 0\\
-12.5 &50 &-12.5 &0 \\
0 & -12.5 & 50 &-12.5 \\
0 &0 & -12.5 & 50
\end{bmatrix} W_j^2=\begin{bmatrix}
6.271728\\
8.580236 \\
8.243136 \\
5.557183
\end{bmatrix}$

So $W_j^2=\begin{bmatrix}
0.1984\\
0.2921 \\
0.2834 \\
0.1820
\end{bmatrix}$
 
  • #10
mathmari said:
I calculated the approximation $W_j^2$ by hand and I get the following system ( I hope I made no mistakes at the calculations :eek: ):
$\begin{bmatrix}
50 & -12.5 & 0 & 0\\
-12.5 &50 &-12.5 &0 \\
0 & -12.5 & 50 &-12.5 \\
0 &0 & -12.5 & 50
\end{bmatrix} W_j^2=\begin{bmatrix}
6.271728\\
8.580236 \\
8.243136 \\
5.557183
\end{bmatrix}$

So $W_j^2=\begin{bmatrix}
0.1984\\
0.2921 \\
0.2834 \\
0.1820
\end{bmatrix}$

I've got:
$$\begin{bmatrix}
75 & -25 & 0 & 0\\
-25 &75 &-25 &0 \\
0 & -25 & 75 &-25 \\
0 &0 & -25 & 75
\end{bmatrix} W_j^2=\begin{bmatrix}
6.271728\\
8.580236 \\
8.243136 \\
5.557183
\end{bmatrix}$$

:eek:
 
  • #11
I like Serena said:
I've got:
$$\begin{bmatrix}
75 & -25 & 0 & 0\\
-25 &75 &-25 &0 \\
0 & -25 & 75 &-25 \\
0 &0 & -25 & 75
\end{bmatrix} W_j^2=\begin{bmatrix}
6.271728\\
8.580236 \\
8.243136 \\
5.557183
\end{bmatrix}$$

:eek:

The elements of the diagonal of the matrix are the coefficients of $W_j^{n+1}$, aren't they? So they are equal to $\frac{1}{Dt^2}+\frac{1}{h^2}$.
The elements of the upper diagonal are the coefficients of $W_{j+1}^{n+1}$, so they are equal to $- \frac{1}{2h^2}$.
And the elements of the lower diagonal are the coefficients of $W_{j-1}^{n+1}$, so they are equal to $- \frac{1}{2h^2}$.

Have I calculated something wrong?

Could you tell me how you found that the elements of the diagonal are $75$ and the elements of the lower and upper diagonal $-25$?
 
  • #12
mathmari said:
The elements of the diagonal of the matrix are the coefficients of $W_j^{n+1}$, aren't they? So they are equal to $\frac{1}{Dt^2}+\frac{1}{h^2}$.
The elements of the upper diagonal are the coefficients of $W_{j+1}^{n+1}$, so they are equal to $- \frac{1}{2h^2}$.
And the elements of the lower diagonal are the coefficients of $W_{j-1}^{n+1}$, so they are equal to $- \frac{1}{2h^2}$.
Have I calculated something wrong?

Could you tell me how you found that the elements of the diagonal are $75$ and the elements of the lower and upper diagonal $-25$?

I rearranged the formula you gave earlier and found for the diagonal elements \(\displaystyle \frac{1}{Dt^2}+\frac{2}{h^2}\) and for their neighbors \(\displaystyle - \frac{1}{h^2}\).
Hmm, you must have rearranged it differently from how I did it. :eek:
 
  • #13
I like Serena said:
I rearranged the formula you gave earlier and found for the diagonal elements \(\displaystyle \frac{1}{Dt^2}+\frac{2}{h^2}\) and for their neighbors \(\displaystyle - \frac{1}{h^2}\).
Hmm, you must have rearranged it differently from how I did it. :eek:

From the following formula, do we not use the terms in red?

$\frac{W_j^{n+1}}{Dt^2}$$+\frac{-2W_j^n+W_j^{n-1}}{Dt^2}=$$\frac{W_{j-1}^{n+1}}{2h^2} - \frac{2W_j^{n+1}}{2h^2} + \frac{W_{j+1}^{n+1}}{2h^2}$$+\frac{W_{j-1}^{n-1}-2W_j^{n-1}+W_{j+1}^{n-1}}{2h^2}+f(x_j,t_n)$

So $\frac{W_j^{n+1}}{Dt^2}-\frac{W_{j-1}^{n+1}}{2h^2}+ \frac{W_j^{n+1}}{h^2}- \frac{W_{j+1}^{n+1}}{2h^2}$$=\frac{2W_j^n-W_j^{n-1}}{Dt^2}+\frac{W_{j-1}^{n-1}-2W_j^{n-1}+W_{j+1}^{n-1}}{2h^2}+f(x_j,t_n)$

$W_j^{n+1}(\frac{1}{Dt^2}+\frac{1}{h^2})+W_{j-1}^{n+1}(\frac{-1}{2h^2})+ W_{j+1}^{n+1}(\frac{-1}{2h^2})=\frac{2W_j^n-W_j^{n-1}}{Dt^2}+\frac{W_{j-1}^{n-1}-2W_j^{n-1}+W_{j+1}^{n-1}}{2h^2}+f(x_j,t_n)$

How did you rearrange it??
 
  • #14
mathmari said:
From the following formula, do we not use the terms in red?

$\frac{W_j^{n+1}}{Dt^2}$$+\frac{-2W_j^n+W_j^{n-1}}{Dt^2}=$$\frac{W_{j-1}^{n+1}}{2h^2} - \frac{2W_j^{n+1}}{2h^2} + \frac{W_{j+1}^{n+1}}{2h^2}$$+\frac{W_{j-1}^{n-1}-2W_j^{n-1}+W_{j+1}^{n-1}}{2h^2}+f(x_j,t_n)$

So $\frac{W_j^{n+1}}{Dt^2}-\frac{W_{j-1}^{n+1}}{2h^2}+ \frac{W_j^{n+1}}{h^2}- \frac{W_{j+1}^{n+1}}{2h^2}$$=\frac{2W_j^n-W_j^{n-1}}{Dt^2}+\frac{W_{j-1}^{n-1}-2W_j^{n-1}+W_{j+1}^{n-1}}{2h^2}+f(x_j,t_n)$

$W_j^{n+1}(\frac{1}{Dt^2}+\frac{1}{h^2})+W_{j-1}^{n+1}(\frac{-1}{2h^2})+ W_{j+1}^{n+1}(\frac{-1}{2h^2})=\frac{2W_j^n-W_j^{n-1}}{Dt^2}+\frac{W_{j-1}^{n-1}-2W_j^{n-1}+W_{j+1}^{n-1}}{2h^2}+f(x_j,t_n)$

How did you rearrange it??

I made a mistake. :eek:
Now I get the same matrix as you have.

As a result I get:
$$W = \begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0.100531 & 0.198483 & 0.293286 & 0.386943 & 0.482468 \\
0 & 0.150796 & 0.29207 & 0.416943 & 0.521666 & 0.603338 \\
0 & 0.150796 & 0.283378 & 0.38187 & 0.433659 & 0.42937 \\
0 & 0.100531 & 0.181988 & 0.225558 & 0.216531 & 0.15098 \\
\end{bmatrix}$$

... but that is still not quite the same as what you had... :eek:
 
  • #15
I like Serena said:
I made a mistake. :eek:
Now I get the same matrix as you have.

As a result I get:
$$W = \begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0.100531 & 0.198483 & 0.293286 & 0.386943 & 0.482468 \\
0 & 0.150796 & 0.29207 & 0.416943 & 0.521666 & 0.603338 \\
0 & 0.150796 & 0.283378 & 0.38187 & 0.433659 & 0.42937 \\
0 & 0.100531 & 0.181988 & 0.225558 & 0.216531 & 0.15098 \\
\end{bmatrix}$$

... but that is still not quite the same as what you had... :eek:

I made a mistake at the way I calculated the vector $b$.
Now I have the same results as you have! (Smirk)

(Wait)
But now having changed some values, the function that calculates $b$ is the following:
Code: 
void *b(double A[],double B[],double C[],int J, int N, int n){
	double *pointer=&C[0],Dt=T/(double)N, h=(c-a)/(double)J;
	int j;	
	for(j=1; j<J; j++){
		C[j-1]=A[j-2]/(2*h*h)-A[j-1]*(h*h+Dt*Dt)/(Dt*Dt*h*h)+A[j]/(2*h*h)+2*B[j-1]/(Dt*Dt)+f(xx(j,J),tn(n,N));
		pointer=&C[j-1];
		//printf("%lf\n",*pointer);
		pointer++;		
	}
}

How can that be that it works, when at the first iteration for j=1 we have A[j-2]=A[-1] ? :confused:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #16
mathmari said:
I made a mistake at the way I calculated the vector $b$.
Now I have the same results as you have! (Smirk)

Good!

(Wait)
How can that be that it works, when at the first iteration for j=1 we have A[j-2]=A[-1] ? :confused:

Aren't all values of A zero in the first iteration?
Then it won't matter much which index on A you are using.
However, the value for A[-1] is undefined and will often contain an unpredictable value.
It seems you've been in "luck" as it would appear A[-1] turned out to be zero.
 
  • #17
I like Serena said:
Aren't all values of A zero in the first iteration?
Then it won't matter much which index on A you are using.
However, the value for A[-1] is undefined and will often contain an unpredictable value.
It seems you've been in "luck" as it would appear A[-1] turned out to be zero.

So should I change these indices or let the for loop be so as it is now?
 
  • #18
mathmari said:
So should I change these indices or let the for loop be so as it is now?

Slightly modified quote from The Ten Commandments for C Programmers:

Thou shalt not index an array outside of its specified range, for chaos and madness await thee.​

(Evilgrin) (Swearing) (Angel)
 
  • #19
I like Serena said:
Slightly modified quote from The Ten Commandments for C Programmers:

Thou shalt not index an array outside of its specified range, for chaos and madness await thee.​

(Evilgrin) (Swearing) (Angel)

Ok! Then could I write the function like that?
Code: 
void *b(double A[],double B[],double C[],int J, int N, int n){
	double *pointer=&C[0],Dt=T/(double)N, h=(c-a)/(double)J;
	int j;	
	C[0]=-A[0]*(h*h+Dt*Dt)/(Dt*Dt*h*h)+A[1]/(2*h*h)+2*B[0]/(Dt*Dt)+f(xx(1,J),tn(n,N));
	pointer=&C[0];
	printf("%lf\n",*pointer);
	for(j=2; j<J; j++){
		C[j-1]=A[j-2]/(2*h*h)-A[j-1]*(h*h+Dt*Dt)/(Dt*Dt*h*h)+A[j]/(2*h*h)+2*B[j-1]/(Dt*Dt)+f(xx(j,J),tn(n,N));
		pointer=&C[j-1];
		printf("%lf\n",*pointer);
		pointer++;		
	}
}
 
  • #20
mathmari said:
Ok! Then could I write the function like that?

Yep. You can.
But only if the array A has J+1 entries, since you refer to A[J]. :eek:
 
  • #21
I like Serena said:
Yep. You can.
But only if the array A has J+1 entries, since you refer to A[J]. :eek:

(Thinking)
At which point do I refer to A[J]?? :confused:
Do you mean at the following for-loop?
Code: 
for(j=2; j<J; j++)
	C[j-1]=A[j-2]/(2*h*h)-A[j-1]*(h*h+Dt*Dt)/(Dt*Dt*h*h)+A[j]/(2*h*h)+2*B[j-1]/(Dt*Dt)+f(xx(j,J),tn(n,N));
But isn't it $j=2,...,J-1$, so $A[J-1]$?
 
  • #22
mathmari said:
(Thinking)
At which point do I refer to A[J]?? :confused:
Do you mean at the following for-loop?
Code: 
for(j=2; j<J; j++)
	C[j-1]=A[j-2]/(2*h*h)-A[j-1]*(h*h+Dt*Dt)/(Dt*Dt*h*h)+A[j]/(2*h*h)+2*B[j-1]/(Dt*Dt)+f(xx(j,J),tn(n,N));
But isn't it $j=2,...,J-1$, so $A[J-1]$?

You're right. So your array A should have J elements.
Does it?
 
  • #23
I like Serena said:
You're right. So your array A should have J elements.
Does it?

I have defined the array A so:
Code: 
double A[J-1];
 
  • #24
mathmari said:
I have defined the array A so:
Code: 
double A[J-1];

But then A[J-1] is out-of-range! :eek:
And it will be unpredictable which results you'll get.
 
  • #25
I like Serena said:
But then A[J-1] is out-of-range! :eek:
And it will be unpredictable which results you'll get.

A ok..So you mean that I should define the array so:
Code: 
double A[J];
 
  • #26
mathmari said:
A ok..So you mean that I should define the array so:
Code: 
double A[J];

Yes.
And you should also make sure it is initialized to zero.
Is it?
 
  • #27
I like Serena said:
Yes.
And you should also make sure it is initialized to zero.
Is it?

I have initialized it as followed:
Code: 
for(j=0; j<J; j++){
	A[j]=0;
}
 
  • #28
mathmari said:
I have initialized it as followed:
Code: 
for(j=0; j<J; j++){
	A[j]=0;
}

Good! ;)
 
  • #29
I like Serena said:
Good! ;)

I read again the exercise and I saw that we need an array $A$ with $J-1$ elements since the zero elements don't have to be saved. That means that I have to define this array so: double A[J-1]; , or not?

So I changed the function that calculates $b$:
Code: 
void *b(double A[],double B[],double C[],int J, int N, int n){
	double *pointer=&C[0],Dt=T/(double)N, h=(c-a)/(double)J;
	int j;	
	C[0]=-A[0]*(h*h+Dt*Dt)/(Dt*Dt*h*h)+A[1]/(2*h*h)+2*B[0]/(Dt*Dt)+f(xx(1,J),tn(n,N));
	pointer=&C[0];
	printf("%lf\n",*pointer);
	for(j=2; j<J-1; j++){
		C[j-1]=A[j-2]/(2*h*h)-A[j-1]*(h*h+Dt*Dt)/(Dt*Dt*h*h)+A[j]/(2*h*h)+2*B[j-1]/(Dt*Dt)+f(xx(j,J),tn(n,N));
		pointer=&C[j-1];
		printf("%lf\n",*pointer);
		pointer++;		
	}
	C[J-2]=A[J-3]/(2*h*h)-A[J-2]*(h*h+Dt*Dt)/(Dt*Dt*h*h)+2*B[J-2]/(Dt*Dt)+f(xx(J-1,J),tn(n,N));
	pointer=&C[J-2];
	printf("%lf\n",*pointer);
}

Now there is no $A[J-1]$..Is it correct now?
 
  • #30
mathmari said:
I read again the exercise and I saw that we need an array $A$ with $J-1$ elements since the zero elements don't have to be saved. That means that I have to define this array so: double A[J-1]; , or not?

So I changed the function that calculates $b$:
Code: 
void *b(double A[],double B[],double C[],int J, int N, int n){
	double *pointer=&C[0],Dt=T/(double)N, h=(c-a)/(double)J;
	int j;	
	C[0]=-A[0]*(h*h+Dt*Dt)/(Dt*Dt*h*h)+A[1]/(2*h*h)+2*B[0]/(Dt*Dt)+f(xx(1,J),tn(n,N));
	pointer=&C[0];
	printf("%lf\n",*pointer);
	for(j=2; j<J-1; j++){
		C[j-1]=A[j-2]/(2*h*h)-A[j-1]*(h*h+Dt*Dt)/(Dt*Dt*h*h)+A[j]/(2*h*h)+2*B[j-1]/(Dt*Dt)+f(xx(j,J),tn(n,N));
		pointer=&C[j-1];
		printf("%lf\n",*pointer);
		pointer++;		
	}
	C[J-2]=A[J-3]/(2*h*h)-A[J-2]*(h*h+Dt*Dt)/(Dt*Dt*h*h)+2*B[J-2]/(Dt*Dt)+f(xx(J-1,J),tn(n,N));
	pointer=&C[J-2];
	printf("%lf\n",*pointer);
}

Now there is no $A[J-1]$..Is it correct now?

Yep. That is correct.

Btw, any reason that the return value is "void *" instead of "void"?
And that you execute "pointer++" when you make no use of the incremented value?
 
  • #31
I like Serena said:
Yep. That is correct.

Great! (Yes) Thank you for your help! (Happy)

I like Serena said:
Btw, any reason that the return value is "void *" instead of "void"?
And that you execute "pointer++" when you make no use of the incremented value?

I used pointers to return the array and use it in the main function..
 

Related to Implicit finite difference method

1. What is the Implicit Finite Difference Method?

The Implicit Finite Difference Method is a numerical technique used to solve partial differential equations. It involves discretizing the domain into a grid and approximating the derivatives using central differences. Unlike the explicit method, the implicit method considers the future time step in the calculation, making it unconditionally stable.

2. How does the Implicit Finite Difference Method differ from the Explicit Finite Difference Method?

The main difference between the Implicit and Explicit Finite Difference Methods is the way they handle the time step. The Explicit method only considers the current time step in the calculation, while the Implicit method considers both the current and future time steps. This makes the Implicit method more stable and accurate, but also more computationally expensive.

3. What types of problems can be solved using the Implicit Finite Difference Method?

The Implicit Finite Difference Method can be used to solve a variety of problems, including heat transfer, fluid flow, and diffusion equations. It is particularly useful for problems with complex boundary conditions or nonlinear equations.

4. What are the advantages of using the Implicit Finite Difference Method?

The Implicit Finite Difference Method has several advantages over other numerical techniques. It is unconditionally stable, meaning it can handle large time steps without causing instability. It is also accurate and can handle complex boundary conditions. Additionally, it is a general method that can be applied to a wide range of problems.

5. What are the limitations of the Implicit Finite Difference Method?

One of the main limitations of the Implicit Finite Difference Method is its computational cost. Since it considers both the current and future time steps, it requires more computational resources compared to the Explicit method. It also requires solving a system of equations, which can be time-consuming for large grids. Additionally, the method may not be suitable for problems with rapidly changing boundary conditions or highly nonlinear equations.

Similar threads

MHB Why Do Normalized B-Splines Always Sum to One?
    • General Math
Replies
8
Views
1K
MHB Explore the Multiple Grid Method: Get Accurate Solution Faster
    • General Math
2
Replies
36
Views
7K
MHB For j >1 the first 2^j digits are correct
    • General Math
Replies
4
Views
797
I [QFT-Schwartz Page. 256] Violation of operator exponentiation rule ?
    • Quantum Physics
Replies
2
Views
507
MHB Approximating Equations for Unknowns: How to Justify the Form of $U_0$?
    • General Math
Replies
5
Views
2K
B General explicit solution to polynomial interpolation
    • General Math
Replies
3
Views
1K
MHB The finite difference method for the heat equation-error
    • General Math
Replies
16
Views
4K
I Why Does Yₙ Converge to Zero for q < 1/2 in a Random Walk?
    • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
8
Views
1K
Integrals of isotropic tensors, for expansion over spherical harmonics
    • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
440
I Optimization problem with multiple outputs: impossible?
    • General Math
Replies
6
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top