NSPDE

Department of Mathematics
Numerical Solution of Partial

Dierential Equations
November 30, 2005
2
Contents
1 Numerical and Mathematical Preliminaries 7
1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.2 Classication problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.2.1 Elliptic equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.2.2 Parabolic equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.2.3 Hyperbolic equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.3 Solution procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.3.1 Finite dierences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.3.2 Finite elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.3.3 Spectral expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.3.4 Ecacy of numerical algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2 Finite Dierence procedure in one dimension 19
2.1 Tri-diagonal algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.1.1 Measurement of numerical error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.1.2 Loss of signicance - Pivoting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.2 Equations with non-constant coecients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.3 Gradient boundary conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.3.1 First order approximation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.3.2 Second order approximation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.3.3 Fictitious nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.3.4 Richardson extrapolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.4 Non-linear equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3
4 CONTENTS
2.4.1 Fixed point procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3 Elliptic equations in two dimensions 39
3.1 Computational molecule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.2 Iterative methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.2.1 A general representation of a sparse matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.2.2 The algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.2.3 Comparison of Gauss-Jacobi and Gauss-Seidel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.2.4 Diagonal dominance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.3 Non-rectangular domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4 Parabolic equations 57
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.1.1 Eulers method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.1.2 Richardsons method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4.1.3 Dufort-Frankel method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
4.1.4 Crank-Nicolson method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
4.1.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
4.2 Numerical consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
4.2.1 Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
4.3 Numerical stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
4.3.1 Fourier method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
4.3.2 Matrix method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
4.3.3 Gradient boundary conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
4.4 Numerical convergence - The Lax equivalence theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
5 Parabolic equations in two dimensions 77
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
5.2 Alternating Direction Implicit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
5.2.1 Consistency of ADI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
5.2.2 Stability of the ADI algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
CONTENTS 5
6 NSPDE solutions 81
6 CONTENTS
Preface
These Lecture Notes draw on lecture notes supplied by Dr D M Haughton, Department of Math-
ematics, The University of Glasgow, and have been compiled by the author for the undergraduate
course Numerical Solution of Partial Dierential Equations given in the Fourth Year of Honours
Mathematics at the University of Glasgow. The course comprises 25 lectures.
Feedback by the students, both in terms of information about typographical errors and mistakes as
much as suggestions for improvement will be much appreciated.
These Lecture Notes complement the course but do not dene it in respect of examinable material
or course content. Topics in these notes may be replaced/augmented within the lecture environment
on a year to year basis.
KAL
Glasgow, October 2003
2003 Kenneth A Lindsay
Chapter 1
Numerical and Mathematical
Preliminaries
1.1 Introduction
Only the most elementary ordinary and partial dierential equations have closed form solutions,
that is, solutions which can be expressed in terms of the fundamental functions of mathematics.
Even when closed form solutions are available, the value of such a solution can be questionable. For
example, let A be the interior of the square with vertices at (1, 1), (1, 1), (1, 1) and (1, 1), then
it may be demonstrated that the solution of the boundary value problem
x
2
+

2
y
2
= 2 , (x, y) A
with = 0 on A, the boundary of A, has exact solution
(x, y) = 1 y
2
32
k=1
(1)
k
cosh
_
(2k + 1)x
2
_
cos
_
(2k + 1)y
2
_
(2k + 1)
3
cosh
_
(2k + 1)
2
_
.
The merit of this exact solution is questionable for three important reasons.
The evaluation of (x, y) at any given point (x, y) requires the computation of a sum. In this
case several hundred terms are required to achieve acceptable numerical accuracy, but often
the number of terms can run into many thousands.
More subtly, the terms in this sum are not trivial to calculate despite the fact that each term
is expressed in terms of simple functions. For example, how does one calculate the quotient
cosh
_
(2k + 1)x
2
_
cosh
_
(2k + 1)
2
_
7
8 CHAPTER 1. NUMERICAL AND MATHEMATICAL PRELIMINARIES
when k is large? Certainly one cannot compute the numerator and denominator separately and
divide! This action will very quickly induce numerical overow for large k since cosh(kx)
as k whenever x is non-zero.
A minor modication to the boundary conditions means a new analytical solution. By contrast,
such a change has little impact on the construction of a numerical solution to this PDE.
In conclusion, the commonly held belief that a numerical solution is inferior to an analytical solution
is a often false. This example illustrates that in many circumstances the reverse may be the case. The
important contributions made by analysis in the theory of ordinary and partial dierential equations
more often lies in the derivation of conditions to ensure the existence and uniqueness of solutions
rather than in their analytical construction. It is only after existence and uniqueness of solution are
guaranteed that is makes sense to use a numerical procedure to construct the solution of the ODE
or PDE.
1.2 Classication problem
The specication of a problem in terms of a dierential equation comes in two parts. First, there is the
dierential equation itself which may be viewed as an algebraic relationship connecting a function
and its derivatives. Second, there are two dierent types of additional conditions which must be
supplied in order to select the desired solution from the many possible solutions. These additional
conditions are called initial conditions and boundary conditions.
Initial conditions are conditions to be satised everywhere for a xed value of an independent
variable, usually interpreted as time and denoted by t.
Boundary conditions are conditions to be satised everywhere on the boundary A of the region
A on which the dierential equation is dened.
Dierent types of PDE require dierent combinations of initial and boundary conditions, and this
in turn means a dierent numerical procedure. Consider, for example, the family of second order
partial dierential equations
A

2
u
x
2
+B

2
u
x
y +C

2
u
y
2
+D
u
x
+E
u
y
+F u = g (1.1)
in which A = A(x, y, u
x
, u
y
, u), , F = F(x, y, u
x
, u
y
, u). Equations of this type can be classied in
one of three ways depending on the value of B
2
4AC.
1.2.1 Elliptic equation
Equation (1.1) is of Elliptic type whenever B
2
4AC < 0. Elliptic partial dierential equations give
rise to Boundary Value Problems (BVPs), that is, only boundary conditions must be supplied to
1.2. CLASSIFICATION PROBLEM 9
complete the specication of the solution of an elliptic PDE. Elliptic equations arise typically in the
formulation of static (time independent) problems in, for example, Potential theory, Fluid Mechanics
and Elasticity. Poissons equation
x
2
+

2
y
2
= g(x, y) , (x, y) A (1.2)
is the archetypal elliptic equation. Here A is a simply connected region with boundary curve A.
The task is to nd a solution of equation (1.2) satisfying the boundary conditions
_
_
= f
1
(x, y) (x, y) C
1
n
= f
2
(x, y) (x, y) C
2
n
+f
3
(x, y) = f
4
(x, y) (x, y) C
3
where f
1
(x, y), , f
4
(x, y) are known functions and A = C
1
C
2
C
3
. The case C
1
= A is the
Dirichlet Problem, the case C
2
= A is the Neumann Problem and the case C
3
= A is the Robin
Problem. It is easy to show that the Dirichlet problem for equation (1.2) has a unique solution but
that the solution of the Neumann problem is not unique, and may not even exist.
1.2.2 Parabolic equation
Equation (1.1) is of Parabolic type whenever B
2
4AC = 0. Parabolic partial dierential equations
give rise to Initial Boundary Value Problems (IBVPs), that is, initial conditions are required to
start the solution at t = 0 and thereafter boundary conditions must be supplied to complete the
specication of the solution for t > 0. Parabolic equations arise typically in problems involving heat,
magnetic elds and ow processes based on randomness. The Diusion equation
t
=

2
x
2
+g(x, t) , (t, x) (0, ) (a, b) (1.3)
is the archetypal parabolic equation where (a, b) R. A solution of equation (1.3) is sought satisfying
the respective initial and boundary conditions
(0, x) = (x) ,
_
a
(t)(t, a) +
a
(t)
a
= f
1
(t) t > 0
b
(t)(t, b) +
b
(t)
b
= f
2
(t) t > 0
where
a
(t),
b
(t),
a
(t),
b
(t), f
1
(t) and f
2
(t) are given functions of t. Again there are well estab-
lished existence and uniqueness results for parabolic equations of type (1.3).
1.2.3 Hyperbolic equation
Equation (1.1) is of Hyperbolic type whenever B
2
4AC > 0. Hyperbolic partial dierential equations
give rise to Initial Value Problems (IVPs), that is, initial conditions are required to start the solution
at t = 0. Hyperbolic equations arise typically in problems involving the propagation of disturbances,
for example, in Wave Mechanics. The Wave equation
t
2
=

2
x
2
+g(x, t) , (t, x) (0, ) (a, b) (1.4)
is the archetypal hyperbolic equation. A solution of equation (1.4) is sought satisfying the initial
conditions
(0, x) = (x) ,
(0, x)
t
= V (x)
where (x) and V (x) are given functions of x.
1.3 Solution procedures
Numerical procedures to solve dierential equations largely decompose into either techniques which
aim to nd the value of the solution at a nite number of nodes within the domain of denition of the
equation and its boundary, or alternatively, techniques which expand the solution as a sum of basis
functions dened on the domain of denition of the equation, and then aim to nd the coecients
in this expansion. The algorithms to be examined in these lectures are now described briey.
1.3.1 Finite dierences
Finite dierence procedures approximate the derivatives appearing in a PDE by sums and dierences
of function values at a set of discrete points, usually uniformly spaced with respect to each independent
variable. The idea is most eectively illustrated in one dimension. Let x and h be real numbers where
h is usually regarded as a small positive step length, then
f
(x) =
f(x +h) f(x h)
2h
+O(h
2
) ,
f
(x) =
f(x +h) 2f(x) +f(x h)
h
2
+O(h
2
)
are two expressions which are often used to compute the rst and second order derivatives of f at
x from knowledge of f(x h), f(x) and f(x + h). The motivation for these results is based on the
realisation that if f is suitably dierentiable in a neighbourhood of x then f has a Taylor Series
expansion in the vicinity of x so that
f(x +h) = f(x) +hf
(x) +
h
2
2
f
(x) +
h
3
6
f
(x) +O(h
4
) ,
f(x h) = f(x) hf
(x) +
h
2
2
f
(x)
h
3
6
f
(x) +O(h
4
) .
Trivially,
f(x +h) f(x h) = 2hf
(x)
h
3
3
f
(x) +O(h
5
)
f(x +h) 2f(x) +f(x h) = 2h
2
f
(x) +O(h
4
)
1.3. SOLUTION PROCEDURES 11
from which it follows that
f
(x) =
f(x +h) f(x h)
2h
+O(h
2
) ,
f
(x) =
f(x +h) 2f(x) +f(x h)
h
2
+O(h
2
) .
These are known as the central dierence formulae for the rst and second derivatives of f. The
formulae are second order accurate by which we mean that the error incurred by approximating
f
(x) or f
(x) by these formulae is proportional to h

2
. This error is commonly called the truncation
error in the sense that it is the mathematical error which is incurred by truncating the Taylor series
to obtain the nite dierence approximations. In fact, it is possible to nd higher order central
dierence formulae but these will not be used in this lecture course.
Two further formulae are required to estimate right-hand and left-hand derivatives. Such formulae
are required for boundary conditions. It can be shown that
4f(x +h) f(x + 2h) 3f(x) = 2hf
(x) +O(h
3
) ,
f(x 2h) + 3f(x) 4f(x h) = 2hf
(x) +O(h
3
) ,
leading to the left-handed and right-handed formulae
f
(x) =
4f(x +h) f(x + 2h) 3f(x)
2h
+O(h
2
) ,
f
(x) =
f(x 2h) + 3f(x) 4f(x h)
2h
+O(h
2
) .
Example Use the table
x 0.5 0.6 0.7
sin x 0.47943 0.56464 0.64422
to estimate the rst derivative of sinx at each mesh point. Compare your estimates with the exact
answer. Estimate the second derivative of sinx at x = 0.6.
Solution Take h = 0.1 then
f
(0.5) =
4(0.56464) 3(0.47943) (0.64422)
0.2
0.88052 (Correct ans) 0.87758
f
(0.6) =
(0.64422) (0.47943)
0.2
0.82395 (Correct ans) 0.82533
f
(0.7) =
3(0.64422) + (0.47943) 4(0.56464)
0.2
0.76765 (Correct ans) 0.76484
Further
f
(0.6) =
(0.64422) 2(0.56464) + (0.47943)
0.01
0.56300 (Correct ans) 0.56464
Numerical formulation of nite dierence formulae
Let interval [a, b] be subdivided into n smaller intervals of uniform size h = (ba)/n by the dissection
point x
k
= a +kh, k = 0, 1, . . . n. Let f
k
= f(x
k
) be the value of f at the point x
k
and suppose that
f
0
, f
1
, . . . f
n
are known. The nite dierence formulae for the rst and second order derivatives of f
at an interior point x
k
of [a, b] are
f
(x
k
) =
f
k+1
f
k1
2h
+O(h
2
) ,
f
(x
k
) =
f
k+1
2f
k
+f
k1
h
2
+O(h
2
) .
The corresponding nite dierence formulae for the derivative of f at the left hand side and right
hand side of the interval [a, b] are
f
(x
0
) =
4f
1
f
2
3f
0
2h
+O(h
2
) ,
f
(x
n
) =
f
n2
+ 3f
n
4f
n1
2h
+O(h
2
) .
Example Use the method of nite dierences with ve nodes to estimate the solution of the
ordinary dierential equation
d
2
u
dx
2
= x, u(0) = u(1) = 0 .
Solution Let u
0
= u(0) = 0, u
1
= u(1/4), u
2
= u(1/2), u
3
= u(3/4) and u
4
= u(1) = 0, then the
unknown values u
1
, u
2
and u
3
are determined by the equations
d
2
u
dx
2
x=1/4
= 1/4 ,
d
2
u
dx
2
x=1/2
= 1/2 ,
d
2
u
dx
2
x=3/4
= 3/4 .
With h = 1/4, the nite dierence formulae give
u
2
2u
1
+u
0
h
2
= 1/4 ,
u
3
2u
2
+u
1
h
2
= 1/2 ,
u
4
2u
3
+u
2
h
2
= 3/4 .
Since u
0
= u
4
= 0 and h = 1/4 then it now follows that
u
2
2u
1
= 1/64
u
3
2u
2
+u
1
= 1/32
2u
3
+u
2
= 3/64.
_
2 1 0
1 2 1
0 1 2
_
_
_
_
u
1
u
2
u
3
_
_
=
_
_
1/64
1/32
3/64
_
_
.
The exact solution of this problem is u(x) = (x
3
x)/6 which in turn gives the exact solutions
u
1
= 5/128, u
2
= 1/16 and u
3
= 7/128. In fact, these are also the values taken by the
estimated solutions. Why are the numerical solutions exact! The answer lies in the fact that the
numerical error in estimating d
2
f/dx
2
as a central dierence depends on the fourth derivative of f
which is zero for the exact solution in this case.
1.3.2 Finite elements
In a nite element procedure the solution is expanded in terms of a set of basis functions superimposed
on a family of elements which in turn span the region in which the solution of the dierential equation
is sought. The idea is illustrated easily by considering the representation of a function of a single
variable.
Let f(x) be a function dened on the interval [a, b] and let a = x
0
< x
1
< x
n
= b be a set of
user-specied nodes. In this one-dimensional case, the intervals [x
0
, x
1
], [x
1
, x
2
] [x
n1
, x
n
] dene
the elements which span [a, b]. These elements are overlayed with a family of user-supplied basis
functions. The most common family of basis functions is the set of triangular (or tent-like) basis
functions
u
k
(x) =
_
_
x x
k1
x
k
x
k1
x [x
k1
, x
k
]
x
k+1
x
x
k+1
x
k
x (x
k
, x
k+1
]
0 otherwise .
These are illustrated in Figure 1.1 with u
k
(x) highlighted as the shaded triangle.
1
x
x
1
x
k1
x
k
x
k+1
x
n1
Figure 1.1: Basis functions u
0
(x), u
1
(x), , u
n
(x) with member u
k
(x) shaded.
With respect to these basis functions, the function f(x) is represented by the nite element expansion
f(x) =
n
k=0
f
k
u
k
(x) .
in which f
0
, , f
n
is a sequence of coecients to be determined. It is not immediately obvious how
these should be chosen in an optimal way. The Least Squares criterion is used frequently for this
purpose. The objective of this criterion is to minimise
E(f
0
, f
1
, , f
n
) =
_
L
0
_
f(x)

f(x)
_
2
dx =
_
L
0
_
f(x)
n
k=0
f
k
u
k
(x)
_
2
dx,
by an appropriate choice of the coecients f
0
, , f
n
. The minimum of E(f
0
, f
1
, , f
n
) is attained
when f
0
, , f
n
are solutions of the equations
E
f
j
= 2
_
L
0
_
f(x)
n
k=0
f
k
u
k
(x)
_
u
j
(x) dx = 0 , j = 0, , n,
which in turn asserts that f
0
, , f
n
satisfy the (n + 1) simultaneous equations
n
k=0
f
k
_
L
0
u
j
(x) u
k
(x) dx =
_
L
0
f(x) u
j
(x) dx, j = 0, , n.
Numerical work involving the nite element procedure necessarily requires the evaluation of various
integrals with integrands formed from products of basis functions and their derivatives. Triangular
basis functions are particularly popular because these basis functions yield integrals that are straight
forward to evaluate. However, the use of triangular basis functions is necessarily restricted to low
order partial dierential equations (2nd order) as will become obvious on further investigation of the
approach.
1.3.3 Spectral expansion
The spectral approach to the solution of a dierential equation appears supercially similar to the
nite element approach in the respect that the solution is expressed as a sum over basis functions.
For example, in one dimension the function f(x) is represented by the nite sum
f(x) =
n
k=0
f
k

k
(x)
where
0
,
1
, are an innite family of spectral functions, the rst (n + 1) of which are used to
approximate f(x). The term spectral comes from the fact that the basis functions
k
are almost
invariably chosen to be the eigenfunctions of a Sturm-Liouville problem. In particular, the members
of the family form a complete basis for the solution space and are also mutually orthogonal with
respect to a suitable weight function. For example, the Fourier series over [0, L] corresponds to the
spectral expansion
n/21
k=n/2
c
k
e
2ikx/L
, x [0, L] .
Chebyshev polynomials and Legendre polynomials are other common choices of basis functions.
There are various ways to construct a spectral approximation to the solution of a dierential equation.
For example, one approach requires the spectral solution to minimise some user-supplied criterion,
for example, that the weighted least squares estimate of f(x)
f(x) (error between the exact solution

and the numerical solution) is minimised. Another approach might force the numerical solution

f(x)
to satisfy the dierential equation identically at a prescribed set of points (collocation points) within
the domain of denition of f.
1.3.4 Ecacy of numerical algorithms
The ecacy of a numerical algorithm to solve partial dierential equations depends on a number of
dierent factors such as the ease of implementation of the algorithm, the numerical accuracy of the
algorithm, the numerical stability of the algorithm, the level of numerical eort required to achieve
a prescribed accuracy, the memory overhead of the algorithm and, most importantly, the versatility
of the algorithm in terms of its ability to treat a variety of domains of integration.
Of the three approaches outlined in this introduction, the nite dierence procedure is the easiest
to implement and to analyse mathematically. Next comes the nite element procedure are nally
the spectral procedure. The implementation of spectral algorithms requires a signicant level of
mathematical skill. Of course, the trade-o is that spectral algorithms are much more accurate than
either nite dierence or nite element algorithms, both of which are of comparable accuracy. The
usual analogy is between exponential (spectral) and algebraic (nite dierence and nite element)
convergence of numerical error to zero as the algorithm is rened.
Both nite dierence and spectral algorithms are best suited to domains with regular boundaries
by which we mean boundaries dened by constant coordinate values. By contrast, nite element
methods are well suited to regions of integration for which the boundaries are irregular. We have the
following rough rule for selection of numerical scheme:-
(a) Choose a nite dierence algorithm if the region is regular (in the coordinate sense) and a quick
and relatively inaccurate solution is sought.
(b) Choose a spectral algorithm if the region is regular (in the coordinate sense) and an accurate
solution is sought.
(c) Choose a nite element algorithm if the region is irregular (in the coordinate sense) irrespective
of the numerical accuracy required of the solution.
Exercises
Question 1. Show that there exists and such that
f
(x) =
f(x +h) f(x h)
2h

h
2
6
f
() ,
f
(x) =
f(x +h) 2f(x) +f(x h)
h
2

h
2
12
f
iv
() .
Question 2. Use the Taylor series expansion of f(x +h) up to and including terms of order h
4
to
show that for suciently dierentiable functions f(x)
df
dx
=
4f(x +h) f(x + 2h) 3f(x)
2h
+O(h
2
) .
Deduce a similar expression for df/dx in terms of f(x h) and f(x 2h).
Question 3. Use the Taylor series expansion of f(x +h) to derive the formulae
d
3
u
dx
3
=
u(x + 2h) 2u(x +h) + 2u(x h) u(x 2h)
2h
3
+O(h
2
) ,
d
4
u
dx
4
=
u(x + 2h) 4u(x +h) + 6u(x) 4u(x h) +u(x 2h)
h
4
+O(h
2
) .
Question 4. Construct a nite dierence approximation for
(x) =
d
dx
_
a(x)
df
dx
_
that is second order accurate, that is, (x) is estimated to order h
2
in terms of f(x h), a(x h),
f(x), a(x), f(x +h), and a(x +h). Prove your assertion.
Question 5. Given the value of function f at the points x h and x +h where (0 < < 1), nd
a rst order dierence formula for the derivative of f at x.
Question 6. Given the value of function f at xh, x and x+h where (0 < < 1), nd a second
order dierence formula for the derivative of f at x.
Question 7. Given the value of function f at the points x 2h, x h, x and x + h where
(0 < 1), derive the nite dierence formula
f
(x) =
6f
1
+ ( 3)( + 1)( + 2)f
0
2(
2
4)f
1
+(
2
1)f
2
( + 1)( + 2)h
2
+O(h
2
).
Question 8. Derive the higher order central dierence formulae
du
dx
=
u(x + 2h) + 8u(x +h) 8u(x h) +u(x 2h)
12h
+O(h
4
) ,
d
2
u
dx
2
=
u(x + 2h) + 16u(x +h) 30u(x) + 16u(x h) u(x 2h)
12h
2
+O(h
4
).
Why do you suppose that these are not used instead of the less accurate second order formulae?
Question 9. For the triangular basis functions
u
k
(x) =
_
_
x x
k1
x
k
x
k1
x [x
k1
, x
k
]
x
k+1
x
x
k+1
x
k
x (x
k
, x
k+1
]
0 otherwise .
in the nite element procedure, compute the values of
(a)
_
L
0
u
j
(x)u
k
(x) dx, (b)
_
L
0
du
j
dx
du
k
dx
dx,
(c)
_
L
0
u
i
(x)u
j
(x)u
k
(x) dx, (d)
_
L
0
u
i
du
j
dx
du
k
dx
dx.
Question 10. Fourier analysis in one dimension represents the solution f(x) of a dierential equa-
tion by the partial sum
f(x) =
n/21
k=n/2
c
k
e
2ikx/L
, x [0, L] .
If f
j
=

f(jL/n), write down the equations connecting f
0
, , f
n1
with the coecients c
k
. Demon-
strate that these equations have solution
c
k
=
1
n
n1
j=0
f
j
e
2ijk/n
.
Chapter 2
Finite Dierence procedure in one
dimension
The nite dierence procedure is illustrate using examples with known solutions. Consider the
boundary value problem
u
xx
= f(x) , u(0) = U
0
u(1) = U
1
in which f(x) is a prescribed function and U
0
and U
1
are given. The nite dierence approximation
to the solution of this dierential equation requires a uniform dissection of [0, 1] by (n + 1) evenly
spaced nodes 0 = x
0
< x
1
< < x
n
= 1 where x
k
= k/n. For convenience, let h = 1/n so that
x
k
= kh. In the usual way let u
k
denote u(x
k
) then
u
xx
(x
k
) =
u
k+1
2u
k
+u
k1
h
2
+O(h
2
)
at each interior point of [0, 1]. The boundary conditions are satised by asserting that u
0
= U
0
and
u
n
= U
1
. The nite dierence solution for u(x) is now obtained by enforcing the original equation at
each interior node of [0, 1], that is,
u
k+1
2u
k
+u
k1
h
2
+O(h
2
) = f
k
, k = 1, 2 , (n 1)
where f
k
= f(x
k
). When arranged in sequence, these equations become
u
2
2u
1
+u
0
= h
2
f
1
+O(h
4
)
u
3
2u
2
+u
1
= h
2
f
2
+O(h
4
)
u
4
2u
3
+u
2
= h
2
f
3
+O(h
4
)
.
.
. =
.
.
.
u
n
2u
n1
+u
n2
= h
2
f
n1
+O(h
4
) .
However, u
0
and u
n
are known and so the rst and last equations are re-expressed in the form
u
2
2u
1
= h
2
f
1
U
0
+O(h
4
)
2u
n1
+u
n2
= h
2
f
n1
U
1
+O(h
4
) .
19
20 CHAPTER 2. FINITE DIFFERENCE PROCEDURE IN ONE DIMENSION
Thus the unknown values u
1
, u
2
, u
n1
are the solution of the system of linear equations
_
_
2 1 0 0 0
1 2 1 0 0
0 1 2 1 0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

0 0 1 2
_
_
_
_
u
1
u
2
.
.
.
.
.
.
u
n1
_
_
=
_
_
h
2
f
1
U
0
h
2
f
2
.
.
.
.
.
.
h
2
f
n1
U
1
_
_
+O(h
4
) (2.1)
The coecient matrix of this system has a main diagonal in which each entry is 2 and sub- and
super-diagonals in which each entry is 1. All other entries are zero. Matrices of this type are called
tri-diagonal matrices. The solution of the equation TX = B is now examined when T is a tri-
diagonal matrix.
2.1 Tri-diagonal algorithm
Let T be the general tri-diagonal matrix
_
_
a
1
b
1
0 0 0
c
2
a
2
b
2
0 0
0 c
3
a
3
b
3
0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

0 0 c
n1
a
n1
_
_
then we describe the steps by which the tri-diagonal system of equations TX = F is solved for X.
First, the row operation R
2
R
2
(c
2
/a
1
)R
1
is used to remove c
2
to give the tri-diagonal matrix
T
(1)
=
_
_
a
1
b
1
0 0 0
0 a
2
b
2
0 0
0 c
3
a
3
b
3
0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

0 0 c
n1
a
n1
_
_
where a
2
and

f
2
are dened by
a
2
a
2
c
2
a
1
b
1
= a
2
, f
2
f
2
c
2
a
1
f
1
=

f
2
.
This algorithm is recursive. The second row aects only a
2
and f
2
, the second entry of T
(1)
can
now be used to remove c
3
provided a
2
is non-zero. This will always be true provided T is non-
singular. After (n 1) repetitions of this algorithm, in which the k
th
repetition operates on the k
th
2.1. TRI-DIAGONAL ALGORITHM 21
and (k + 1)
th
rows of T
(k)
, the original equations TX = F will be reduced to the new system of
equations T
(n1)
X =

F where
T
(n1)
=
_
_
a
1
b
1
0 0 0
0 a
2
b
2
0 0
0 0 a
3
b
3
0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

0 0 0 a
n1
_
_
.
Since T
(n1)
is now an upper triangular matrix, then T
(n1)
X =

F can be solved for X by backward
substitution. the computational eort in this algorithm is directly proportional to N, the number of
equations in the system. Another way to think of the tri-diagonal algorithm is that every non-singular
tri-diagonal matrix T can be expressed as the product LU where L is a lower triangular matrix and U
is an upper triangular matrix. Recall that in general L holds the row operations used in the gaussian
elimination algorithm, and that U is the gaussian reduced form of T. Therefore, all the non-zero
entries of L are located in its main diagonal and sub-diagonal. Similarly, all the non-zero entries of
U are located in its main diagonal and super-diagonal.
2.1.1 Measurement of numerical error
There are two measures of numerical accuracy in common use. To make these measures specic,
suppose that the numerical solution and exact solution of u
= f(x) at the node x

k
are respectively
u
k
and u
k
. The rst measure, usually called the root-mean-square-error or L
2
error, is dened to be
E
n
(u u) =
_
1
n + 1
n
k=0
(u
k
u
k
)
2
_
1/2
(2.2)
This summation is approximately proportional to the square root of the integral of the squared
dierence of the exact and numerical solutions. The second measure, usually called the mean-
absolute-error or L
1
error, is dened to be
E
n
(u u) =
1
n + 1
n
k=0
| u
k
u
k
| (2.3)
This summation is approximately proportional to the integral of the absolute dierence between
the exact and numerical solutions. Both measures usually paint the same picture, but it is well
known that the L
1
error is more discriminating. For convenience we shall always use the L
2
norm
for measuring errors and use the notation E
n
to denote the value of the L
2
norm when applied to a
dissection containing 2
n
intervals of uniform length h.
Example Let u(x) be the solution of the boundary value problem
u
xx
= sin(x) , u(0) = u(1) = 0
in which is an arbitrary non-zero parameter. This corresponds to the choices f(x) = sin(x) and
U
0
= U
1
= 0. The exact solution to this dierential equation is
u(x) =
xsin() sin(x)
2
.
Table 2.1 gives the L
1
and L
2
norms of the numerical solution to this dierential equation for various
choices of n when = 1 and = 50 respectively.
= 1 = 50
n E
n
E
n1
/E
n
E
n
E
n1
/E
n
4 0.0002242 0.0121297
8 0.0000561 3.904 0.0121549 0.960
16 0.0000140 4.001 0.0001235 0.990
32 0.0000035 4.002 0.0000663 98.35
64 0.0000009 4.000 0.0000151 1.860
128 0.0000002 4.000 0.0000037 4.401
256 0.0000001 4.000 0.0000009 4.090
512 0.0000000 4.000 0.0000002 4.020
1024 0.0000000 4.000 0.0000001 4.010
Table 2.1:
Comparison of L
2
er-
rors in the solution
of u
xx
= sin(x) for
the boundary condi-
tions u(0) = u(1) = 0
when = 1 and when
= 50.
Points to note First, an accurate solution for = 1 and = 50 can be obtained by using a
suitably ne mesh. Of course, in practice the nite numerical precision available in the computation
will intervene and provide a practical limit to the maximum available accuracy. Second, the ratio of
errors has limiting value 4 independent of the value of . As n is doubled, h is halved, and the error
decreases by a factor of 4, that is, the error is proportional to h
2
. This is in complete agreement with
the presumed accuracy of the nite dierence approximation of the second derivative.
2.1.2 Loss of signicance - Pivoting
To appreciate how loss of numerical accuracy can occur in the solution of simultaneous equations,
consider the use of a computer holding 3 signicant gures to solve the equations
0.0001 x
1
+ 1.00 x
2
= 1.00
1.00 x
1
+ 1.00 x
2
= 2.00
[The actual solution is x
1

= 1.00010 and x
2

= 0.99990 to 5 decimal places.]
The matrix formulation of the problem is
_
0.0001 1.00
1.00 1.00
__
x
1
x
2
_
=
_
1.00
2.00
_
2.1. TRI-DIAGONAL ALGORITHM 23
Using exact arithmetic the row operation R
2
R
2
10000R
1
yields
_
0.0001 1.00
0.0000 9999.0
__
x
1
x
2
_
=
_
1.00
9998.0
_
.
However, on a computing machine with 3 signicant gures, the second row of these equations cannot
be held to the required accuracy and is approximated. The numerical approximation is
_
0.0001 1.00
0.0000 1.00 10
4
__
x
1
x
2
_
=
_
1.00
1.00 10
4
_
.
The solution of this system is x
2
= 1.00 followed by x
1
= 0.00. A catastrophic error has occurred due
to nite precision arithmetic. The correct procedure is to interchange rows 1 and 2 of the original
matrix to obtain
_
1.00 1.00
0.0001 1.00
__
x
1
x
2
_
=
_
2.00
1.00
_
Now perform the row operation R
2
R
2
0.0001R
1
to obtain in exact arithmetic
_
1.00 1.00
0.00 0.9999
__
x
1
x
2
_
=
_
2.00
0.9998
_
As previously, on a computing machine with 3 signicant gures, the second row of these equations
cannot be held to the required accuracy and is approximated. The numerical approximation is
_
1.00 1.00
0.00 1.00
__
x
1
x
2
_
=
_
2.00
1.00
_
which in turn yields the approximate solutions x
2
= 1.00 followed by x
1
= 1.00. The process of
interchanging rows is called pivoting. In general, the row in the matrix with the largest entry (in
modulus) in the column for which the row is to be used to eliminate other entries is chosen as the
pivotal row.
Example Use Gaussian elimination with partial pivoting to solve the equations
x
1
+ 2x
2
3x
3
= 2
x
1
2x
2
+ x
3
= 1
2x
1
+ x
2
x
3
= 0
.
Solution The augmented matrix is
_
_
1 2 3 2
1 2 1 1
2 1 1 0
_
_

_
_
2 1 1 0
1 2 1 1
1 2 3 2
_
_
R
1
R
3
_
2 1 1 0
0
3
2
1
2
1
0
5
2
5
2
2
_
_
R
2
R
2
+
1
2
R
1
R
3
R
3
+
1
2
R
1
_
2 1 1 0
0
5
2
5
2
2
0
3
2
1
2
1
_
_
R
2
R
3
_
2 1 1 0
0
5
2
5
2
2
0 0 2
11
5
_
_
R
3
R
3
+
3
5
R
2
The solution is now obtained by back substitution in the order x
3
= 1.1, x
2
= 0.3 and x
1
= 0.7.
2.2 Equations with non-constant coecients
The numerical solution of ordinary dierential equations with non-constant coecients follows a
similar pattern to the constant coecient case. The procedure is again illustrated by example. Let
u(x) be the solution of the boundary value problem
a(x) u
xx
+b(x) u
x
+c(x) u = f(x) , u(x
0
) = U
0
, u(x
n
) = U
1
where a(x), b(x), c(x) and f(x) are known functions of x, the constants U
0
and U
1
are given, and
nally, x
0
and x
n
are the left hand and right hand endpoints of an interval which is uniformly
dissected by the points x
k
= x
0
+kh where h = (x
n
x
0
)/n. At the k
th
internal node of the interval
[x
0
, x
n
], the nite dierence representation of the dierential equation is
a
k
_
u
k+1
2u
k
+u
k1
h
2
+O(h
2
)
_
+b
k
_
u
k+1
u
k1
2h
+O(h
2
)
_
+c
k
u
k
= f
k
where a
k
= a(x
k
), b
k
= b(x
k
), c
k
= c(x
k
) and f
k
= f(x
k
). This equation is now multiplied by 2h
2
and the terms re-arranged to give
(2a
k
+hb
k
)u
k+1
(4a
k
2h
2
c
k
)u
k
+ (2a
k
hb
k
)u
k1
= 2h
2
f
k
+O(h
4
)
2.2. EQUATIONS WITH NON-CONSTANT COEFFICIENTS 25
for k = 1, 2, (n 1). As previously, the rst and last equations take advantage of the boundary
conditions to get the nal system of equations
(4a
1
2h
2
c
1
)u
1
+ (2a
1
+hb
1
)u
2
= 2h
2
f
1
(2a
0
hb
0
)U
0
+O(h
4
)
.
.
. =
.
.
.
(2a
k
hb
k
)u
k1
(4a
k
2h
2
c
k
)u
k
+ (2a
k
+hb
k
)u
k+1
= 2h
2
f
k
+O(h
4
)
.
.
. =
.
.
.
(2a
n1
hb
n1
)u
n2
(4a
n1
2h
2
c
n1
)u
n1
= 2h
2
f
k
(2a
n
+hb
n
)U
1
+O(h
4
)
.
Example Let u(x) be the solution of the boundary value problem
x
2
u
xx
+xu
x
+u = x, u() = u(1) = 0
in which (0, 1). This equation corresponds to the choices a(x) = x
2
, b(x) = f(x) = x, c(x) = 1
and U
0
= U
1
= 0. The exact solution to this dierential equation is
u(x) =
1
2
_
x +
sin(log x/) sin(log x)
sin(log )
_
.
Table 2.2 gives the L
1
and L
2
norms of the numerical solution to this dierential equation for various
choices of n when = 0.01 and when = 0.001.
= 0.01 = 0.001
n E
n
E
n1
/E
n
E
n
E
n1
/E
n
4 1.8429306 4.4799446
8 0.6984934 0.141 0.0312476 0.127
16 0.2161714 2.638 0.3327640 143.4
32 0.0752496 3.231 0.5445338 0.094
64 0.0206367 2.873 0.8809907 0.611
128 0.0045843 3.646 3.9401618 0.618
256 0.0010199 4.502 0.5773118 0.224
512 0.0002431 4.495 0.1126978 6.825
1024 0.0000599 4.195 0.0236637 5.123
4096 0.0000037 4.056 0.0011824 4.762
16384 0.0000002 4.004 0.0000719 4.292
65536 0.0000000 4.000 0.0000045 4.023
Table 2.2:
Comparison of L
2
errors
in the solution of x
2
u
xx
+
xu
x
+u = x for the bound-
ary conditions u() =
u(1) = 0 when = 0.01 and
when = 0.001.
As previously, it is clear that the nite dierence approach based on central dierence formulae
has error O(h
2
) provided h is suitably small. The dicult in this application stems from the fact
that the dierential equation has a singular solution at x = 0. The closer approaches zero, the
more troublesome will be the numerical solution. All numerical procedures to solve this dierential
equation will experience the same diculty. For example, it is clear that in the vicinity of x =
that u
xx
/u has order
2
- very large when is small. Consequently the error in the nite dierence
approximation to the derivatives of u around x = will experience a true numerical error of order
(h/)
2
. This is only small when h is very small. The standard way to eliminate problems of this sort
is to re-express the dierential equation in terms of another independent variable, say z = log(x) in
this particular example.
2.3 Gradient boundary conditions
To date, all boundary conditions have specied the value of the solution on the boundary. Often,
however, it is the derivative of the solution that is prescribed on a boundary. Suppose it is required
to solve an ODE in [0, 1] with a gradient boundary condition at x = 1. We explore several ways to
do this.
2.3.1 First order approximation
The rst approach is to write
u(x +h) = u(x) +hu
x
(x) +
h
2
2
u
xx
(x) +O(h
3
)
and observe that this equation can be re-expressed in the form
u
x
(x) =
u(x +h) u(x)
h
+O(h) .
The nite dierence representation of a gradient boundary condition at a left or right endpoint is
Left hand boundary Right hand boundary
u
x
(x
0
) =
u
1
u
0
h
+O(h) u
x
(x
n
) =
u
n
u
n1
h
+O(h)
Therefore to use the nite dierence algorithm to solve the dierential equation
a(x) u
xx
+b(x) u
x
+c(x) u = f(x) , u(x
0
) = U
0
, u
x
(x
n
) = G
1
where a(x), b(x), c(x) and f(x) are known functions of x, and the constants U
0
and G
1
are given,
one enforces the ordinary dierential equation at each interior node of [x
0
, x
n
] and uses the nite
dierence representation of the boundary condition at x = x
n
. Note that one further equation is now
2.3. GRADIENT BOUNDARY CONDITIONS 27
required because u
n
is no longer known and has to be determined as part of the solution process.
The nite dierence equations are
(4a
1
2h
2
c
1
)u
1
+ (2a
1
+hb
1
)u
2
= 2h
2
f
1
(2a
1
hb
1
)U
0
+O(h
4
)
.
.
. =
.
.
.
(2a
k
hb
k
)u
k1
(4a
k
2h
2
c
k
)u
k
+ (2a
k
+hb
k
)u
k+1
= 2h
2
f
k
+O(h
4
)
.
.
. =
.
.
.
(2a
n1
hb
n1
)u
n2
(4a
n1
2h
2
c
n1
)u
n1
+ (2a
n
+hb
n
)u
n
= 2h
2
f
k
+O(h
4
)
u
n1
+u
n
= hG
1
+O(h
2
)
.
To appreciate how the inferior accuracy of the last equation degrades the accuracy of the entire
solution, it is sucient to nd the numerical solution of
x
2
u
xx
+xu
x
+u = x, u() = u
(1) = 0
with = 0.01. This equation corresponds to the choices a(x) = x
2
, b(x) = f(x) = x, c(x) = 1 and
U
0
= G
1
= 0 and has exact solution
u(x) =
1
2
_
x +
sin(log /x) cos(log x)
cos(log )
_
.
Table 2.3 illustrates the error structure of the numerical solution based on the nite dierence method.
n E
n
E
n1
/E
n
4 3.7369443
8 3.4181676 1.246
16 3.1350210 1.093
32 2.5472682 1.090
64 1.4788262 1.231
128 0.5404178 1.722
256 0.1713286 2.736
512 0.0598533 3.154
1024 0.0235584 2.862
2048 0.0101889 2.541
4096 0.0046959 2.312
8192 0.0022481 2.169
32768 0.0005433 2.089
Table 2.3:
Comparison of L
2
errors in the
solution of x
2
u
xx
+xu
x
+u = x
where u(0.01) = u
(1) = 0.
The gradient boundary condi-
tion is implemented to O(h)
accuracy.
It is clear from Table 2.3 that the accuracy of the nite dierence scheme is degraded to the accuracy
of its worst equation - in this case the boundary condition equation which is O(h) accurate. We need
O(h
2
) accurate forward and backward dierence formulae for gradients.
2.3.2 Second order approximation
The O(h
2
) accurate forward and backward nite dierence formulae for u
x
(x) are respectively
3u(x) + 4u(x +h) u(x + 2h) = 2hu
x
(x) +O(h
3
) ,
u(x 2h) 4u(x h) + 3u(x) = 2hu
x
(x) +O(h
3
) .
Thus the O(h
2
) accurate nite dierence representation of a gradient at a left or a right endpoint is
Left hand boundary Right hand boundary
u
x
(x
0
) =
3u
0
+ 4u
1
u
2
2h
+O(h
2
) u
x
(x
n
) =
u
n2
4u
n1
+ 3u
n
2h
+O(h
2
)
The new nite dierence formulation of the original problem only diers from the original formulation
in respect of one equation, namely that contributed by the boundary condition at x = 1. The
numerical form is
(4a
1
2h
2
c
1
)u
1
+ (2a
1
+hb
1
)u
2
= 2h
2
f
1
(2a
0
hb
0
)U
0
+O(h
4
)
.
.
. =
.
.
.
(2a
k
hb
k
)u
k1
(4a
k
2h
2
c
k
)u
k
+ (2a
k
+hb
k
)u
k+1
= 2h
2
f
k
+O(h
4
)
.
.
. =
.
.
.
(2a
n1
hb
n1
)u
n2
(4a
n1
2h
2
c
n1
)u
n1
+ (2a
n
+hb
n
)u
n
= 2h
2
f
k
+O(h
4
)
u
n2
4u
n1
+ 3u
n
= 2hG
1
+O(h
3
)
.
Unfortunately, the matrix of the resulting system of equations is no longer tri-diagonal, but this
causes no diculty since the matrix can be converted to tri-diagonal form by a row operation in
which the penultimate row of the matrix is used to eliminate u
n2
from the last row of the matrix.
n E
n
E
n1
/E
n
n E
n
E
n1
/E
n
4 3.7567566 512 0.0261418 4.060
8 3.4135978 1.116 1024 0.0064812 4.097
16 3.1071541 1.101 2048 0.0016165 4.033
32 2.4869724 1.099 4096 0.0004039 4.009
64 1.3708621 1.249 8192 0.0001009 4.002
128 0.4348676 1.814 16384 0.0000252 4.001
256 0.1071061 3.152 32768 0.0000063 4.000
Table 2.4: L
2
errors in the solution of x
2
u
xx
+xu
x
+u = x with boundary conditions u(0.01) =
u
x
(1) = 0 are compared. The gradient boundary condition is implemented to O(h
2
) accuracy.
Table 2.4 illustrates the behaviour of the numerical solution based on the nite dierence method in
which the gradient boundary condition is implemented to O(h
2
) accuracy. Clearly O(h
2
) accuracy is
now recovered by using the second order accurate implementation of the boundary condition.
2.3.3 Fictitious nodes
The most direct way to derive a second order accurate boundary condition is to use the central
dierence formulae
u
x
(x
0
) =
u
1
u
1
2h
+O(h
2
) , u
x
(x
n
) =
u
n+1
u
n1
2h
+O(h
2
) .
The diculty with these approximations is that they introduce ctitious solutions u
1
and u
n+1
at
the ctitious nodes x
1
(for u
x
(x
0
)) and x
n+1
(for u
x
(x
n
)) respectively. Both nodes are ctitious
because they lie outside the region in which the dierential equation is valid. The introduction
of a ctitious node creates another unknown to be determined. The procedure is as follows. The
dierential equation is assumed to be valid at the node x
n
to obtain
a
n
_
u
n+1
2u
n
+u
n1
h
2
+O(h
2
)
_
+b
n
G
1
+c
n
u
n
= f
n
,
u
n+1
u
n1
2h
= G
1
+O(h
2
) .
The task is now to eliminate u
n+1
between both equations. To do this, multiply the rst equation
by h
2
and the second equation by 2ha
n
and subtract to get
2a
n
u
n1
+ (h
2
c
n
2a
n
)u
n
= h
2
f
n
(2a
n
+hb
n
)hG
1
+O(h
3
) .
This equation is now used as the nal equation of the tri-diagonal system which becomes
(4a
1
2h
2
c
1
)u
1
+ (2a
1
+hb
1
)u
2
= 2h
2
f
1
(2a
0
hb
0
)U
0
+O(h
4
)
.
.
. =
.
.
.
(2a
k
hb
k
)u
k1
(4a
k
2h
2
c
k
)u
k
+ (2a
k
+hb
k
)u
k+1
= 2h
2
f
k
+O(h
4
)
.
.
. =
.
.
.
(2a
n1
hb
n1
)u
n2
(4a
n1
2h
2
c
n1
)u
n1
+ (2a
n
+hb
n
)u
n
= 2h
2
f
k
+O(h
4
)
2a
n
u
n1
+ (h
2
c
n
2a
n
)u
n
= h
2
f
n
(2a
n
+hb
n
)hG
1
+O(h
3
)
.
Table 2.5 compares the error structure of the backward dierence and ctitious node implementations
of the gradient boundary condition when = 0.01.
Backward dierence Fictitious nodes
n E
n
E
n1
/E
n
E
n
E
n1
/E
n
4 3.7567566 3.7573398
8 3.4135978 1.116 3.4144871 1.234
16 3.1071541 1.101 3.1108516 1.100
32 2.4869724 1.099 2.4917194 1.098
64 1.3708621 1.249 1.3755215 1.248
128 0.4348676 1.814 0.4371938 1.811
256 0.1071061 3.152 0.1078104 3.146
512 0.0261418 4.060 0.0263256 4.055
1024 0.0064812 4.097 0.0065275 4.095
2048 0.0016165 4.033 0.0016281 4.033
4096 0.0004039 4.009 0.0004068 4.009
8192 0.0001009 4.002 0.0001017 4.002
16384 0.0000252 4.001 0.0000254 4.001
32768 0.0000063 4.000 0.0000064 4.000
Table 2.5:
Comparison of L
2
errors in the so-
lution of x
2
u
+xu
+u = x for the
boundary conditions u(0.01) =
u
(1) = 0. The results on the left

use the backward dierence imple-
mentation and those on the right
use the ctitious nodes implemen-
tation of the gradient boundary
condition u
(1) = 0. Both imple-

mentations are O(h
2
) accuracy.
2.3.4 Richardson extrapolation
To date we have assumed that n is given, although in reality the value of n is unknown and one does
not have an exact solution with which to assess the accuracy of the procedure. We illustrate the
idea of Richardson extrapolation. The success of the method lies in precise knowledge of the error
structure of the numerical procedure - in this case the procedure has error O(h
2
).
Example Construct the nite dierence equations for the numerical solution of the boundary value
problem
u
tan x = 1 , u(0) = 0 , u
(/4) = 1 .
The exact solution is u(x) = log cos x.
Solution Take h = /(4n) then a(x) = 1, b(x) = tan x, c(x) = 0 and f(x) = 1. The boundary
conditions are U
0
= 0 and G
1
= 1. The nite dierence equations based on the ctitious nodes
procedure are therefore
4u
1
+ (2 +hb
1
)u
2
= 2h
2
f
1
+O(h
4
)
.
.
. =
.
.
.
(2 hb
k
)u
k1
4u
k
+ (2 +hb
k
)u
k+1
= 2h
2
f
k
+O(h
4
)
.
.
. =
.
.
.
(2 hb
n1
)u
n2
4u
n1
+ (2 +hb
n
)u
n
= 2h
2
f
k
+O(h
4
)
2u
n1
2u
n
= h
2
f
n
+ (2 +hb
n
)h +O(h
3
)
.
Suppose initially that n = 40 - the initial choice of n is arbitrary but should be sensible. Let the
nite dierence solution computed at these nodes be u
(1)
0
, , u
(1)
n
. Now take n = 2n and recompute
the new solution. Let this solution be u
(2)
0
, , u
(2)
2n
. The solution u
(1)
k
may be compared directly with
the solution u
(2)
2k
since both apply at the same node. The root mean square
E
n
=
_
1
n + 1
n
k=0
( u
(1)
k
u
(2)
2k
)
2
_
1/2
is a measure of the error incurred in computing the original solution. In this case E
40
is determined.
The procedure may be continued by doubling n again - E
80
is now computed. The algorithm continues
to double n and terminates whenever E
n
< where is a user supplied error bound. Moreover, since
we already know that the procedure is O(h
2
), we expect the ratio E
n1
/E
n
to have a limiting value of
4 so that every iteration of this loop approximately reduces E
n
by a factor of 4. Table 2.6 illustrates
the convergence properties of E
n
.
n E
n
E
n1
/E
n
40 0.0001026
80 0.0000261 3.922
160 0.0000066 3.960
320 0.0000017 3.980
640 0.0000004 3.990
Table 2.6:
Estimated L
2
norm of the errors
incurred in the solution of u
xx

tan xu
x
= 1 with boundary condi-
tions u(0) = 0 and u
x
(/4) = 1.
Richardson extrapolation takes advantage of the error structure of the solution. Suppose u
(1)
and
u
(2)
are two approximations of the exact solution u corresponding to dissection renements h
1
and
h
2
respectively. Since the error is O(h
2
) then
u
(1)
= u +ch
2
1
+O(h
3
1
)
u
(2)
= u +ch
2
2
+O(h
3
2
)
_
_
u =
h
2
2
u
(1)
h
2
1
u
(2)
+O(h
2
2
h
3
1
h
2
1
h
3
2
)
h
2
2
h
2
1
.
The error in the combination of u
(1)
and u
(2)
dened by u is more accurate than either of u
(1)
or
u
(2)
. In the case in which h
2
= h
1
/2, it is easy to see that the extrapolated solution is
u =
4 u
(2)
u
(1)
3
+O(h
3
) .
To test this idea, the Richardson extrapolation is used to improve the estimated solution and the L
2
norm is computed with respect to the exact solution so as to check the improved convergence. To
be specic, u
(1)
and u
(2)
are combined to give the more accurate solution u
(1)
which is then used for
the norm computation. In the next stage, u
(2)
and u
(3)
are used to give the more accurate solution
u
(2)
which is then used for the norm computation. The procedure is repeated. Table 2.7 records the
results of these calculations.
n E
n
E
n1
/E
n
40 0.1166 10
5
80 0.1493 10
6
7.810
160 0.1890 10
7
7.902
320 0.2378 10
8
7.946
640 0.3029 10
9
7.851
Table 2.7:
Estimates the L
2
norm of the errors incurred in the
solution of u
xx
tan xu
x
= 1 with boundary con-
ditions u(0) = 0 and u
x
(/4) = 1. The norm is
computed from the exact solution and the Richard-
son extrapolation of the nite dierence solution.
2.4 Non-linear equations
The application of the nite dierence algorithm to non-linear equations is similar to that of linear
equations in the respect that the non-linear equation is enforced at each node of the dissection by
replacing each derivative appearing in the equation with its nite dierence representation. However,
the resulting equations are no longer linear. The general solution strategy is based on iteration. The
algebraic equations resulting from the replacement of derivatives by nite dierences are expressed
in a xed-point format that is known to converge.
2.4.1 Fixed point procedure
One dimension
The general idea of a xed point procedure is rst illustrated for the solution of f(x) = 0 assuming
the equation has a solution near x
0
. The aim is to construct a xed point scheme which converges
to the true solution, assumed to be near x
0
. Let be an arbitrary constant then the identity
x = x +f(x) = g(x)
2.4. NON-LINEAR EQUATIONS 33
may be used to construct the iterative scheme x
k+1
= g(x
k
) with initial value x
0
. If this scheme
converges, then the limit point is a solution of f(x) = 0. The usual way to promote convergence is to
choose so that g(x) is a contraction mapping near the xed point. If x
0
is a good approximation
to this xed point, then choose so that g
(x
0
) = 1 + f
(x
0
) = 0, that is, = 1/f
(x
0
). The
iteration is now
x
k+1
= x
k
f(x
k
)
f
(x
0
)
, x
0
given.
Note that this algorithm is similar to the Newton-Raphson algorithm, the latter simply updating
as improved estimates of the xed point are found.
Many dimensions
Let F(x) = 0 be a system of n equations in n unknowns, and suppose that X
0
is an approximation to
this solution. The generalisation of the one dimensional algorithm to many dimensions begins with
the identity
X = X +AF(X) = G(X)
in which X is a vector of dimension n and A is an arbitrary constant n n matrix. This identity in
turn leads to the iterative algorithm X
k+1
= X
k
+AF(X
k
). To make this a contraction mapping in
the vicinity of X
0
, it is enough to choose A such that
(X +AF(X))
X
j
X=X
0
= 0 I +AJ(X
0
) = 0
where J(X
0
) is the Jacobian of F(X) evaluated at X
0
. Clearly A = J
1
(X
0
) and the nal iterative
scheme is
X
k+1
= X
k
J
1
(X
0
)F(X
k
) , X
0
given.
Provided X
0
is a good guess of the original solution then this algorithm should converge to the exact
solution. The Newton-Raphson variant of this scheme is obtained by upgrading A whenever each
new estimate of the zero becomes available. Of course, J
1
(X
0
) is never computed in this algorithm;
instead we solve the simultaneous equations
J(X
0
)(X
k+1
X
k
) = F(X
k
) X
0
given.
Example Find the solutions of the simultaneous equations
xy sin x y
2
= 0 , x
2
y
3
tan y 1 = 0 .
using the Newton-Raphson algorithm.
Solution Here F(X) = [xy sin x y
2
, x
2
y
3
tan y 1] and the Jacobian of this vector is
J(X) =
_
_
y cos x x 2y
2xy
3
3x
2
y
2
sec
2
y
_
_
With starting values X = [0.0, 1.0] the rst 10 iterations assuming a xed A and with A updated
as iteration proceeds (Newton-Raphson) are given in Table 2.8.
A not updated Newton-Raphson
n x y x y
1 0.3372779 0.8372779 0.3372779 0.8372779
2 0.3686518 0.8247921 0.3762218 0.8235464
3 0.3748875 0.8230965 0.3767514 0.8235034
4 0.3762579 0.8230912 0.3767515 0.8235034
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
15 0.3767514 0.8235032 0.3767515 0.8235034
16 0.3767515 0.8235034 0.3767515 0.8235034
Table 2.8:
Estimated solutions of the
simultaneous equations
xy sinx y
2
= 0 and
x
2
y
3
tan y 1 = 0
using a xed A and a
continually updated A
(Newton-Raphson).
Example Use the nite dierence algorithm to solve the boundary value problem
u
xx
= u
2
, u(0) = 0, u(1) = 1 .
Solution In the usual notation, the nite dierence approximation to this equation is
u
k+1
2u
k
+u
k1
h
2
u
2
k
= 0 , k = 1, , (n 1)
where u
0
= 0 and u
n
= 1. These values appear in the rst and last equations and so F is
F
1
= u
2
2u
1
h
2
u
2
1
.
.
. =
.
.
.
F
k
= u
k+1
2u
k
+u
k1
h
2
u
2
k
.
.
. =
.
.
.
F
n1
= 1 2u
n1
+u
n2
h
2
u
2
n1
.
The Jacobian matrix is J
ik
= F
i,k
. In this example, it is clear that J is tri-diagonal. To be specic,
J =
_
_
2 2h
2
u
1
1 0 0 0
1 2 2h
2
u
2
1 0 0
0 1 2 2h
2
u
3
1 0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1 2 2h
2
u
k
1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

0 0 1 2 2h
2
u
n1
_
_
The algorithm is started by guessing the initial solution. Often a suitable guess is obtained by
assuming any sensible function of x connecting the boundary data - say u(x) = x in this instance.
The renement of the mesh is set by choosing N and the initial estimate of u
0
, u
1
, , u
n
determined
from the guessed solution. The value of n is then doubled and the computation repeated. The root
mean square error norm
E
n
=
_
1
n + 1
n
k=0
( u
(1)
k
u
(2)
2k
)
2
_
is then used to decide when the algorithm should terminate. With a stopping criterion of E
n
< 10
8
,
Table 2.9 shows the result of twelve iterations of the Newton-Raphson algorithm.
N E
N
E
N1
/E
N
4 0.0001037
8 0.0000262 3.959
16 0.0000066 3.992
32 0.0000016 3.998
64 0.0000004 4.000
Table 2.9:
Estimated solutions of the u
xx
= u
2
with boundary conditions u(0) = 0
and u(1) = 1. The accuracy is
based on 12 iterations of the Newton-
Raphson algorithm.
Exercises
Question 11. Use the O(h
2
) method of nite dierences to solve the boundary value problem
y
+xy = 1, y(0) = 0, y(1) = 1

taking h = 1/4. This means that we want to know the values of y(0), y(1/4), y(1/2), y(3/4) and
y(1). Some are given and some you must nd.
2
) method of nite dierences to solve the boundary value problem
y
+y = 0, y(0) = 1, y
(1) = 0
taking h = 1/4. [Use the backward dierence representation of a rst derivative to deal with the
gradient boundary condition.]
Show that y(x) = sec 1 cos(1 x) is the exact solution of this equation and use it to check the
accuracy of your answers.
2
) method of nite dierences with h = 1/3 to solve the boundary value
problem
x
2
y
xy
+y = x
2
, y(1) = 0, y(2) = 4 .
Verify that the exact solution to this boundary value problem is
y(x) = x
2
x +
xlog x
log 2
and use this exact solution to check the accuracy of your numerical calculations.
2
) method of nite dierences with h = 1/3 to solve the boundary value
problem
x
2
y
xy
+y = x
2
, y
(1) = 0, y(2) = 1 .
Use both forward dierences and ctitious nodes to deal with y
(1) = 0. Verify that the exact solution

to this boundary value problem is
y(x) = x
2
+
x(log x + 3 4 log 2)
2(log 2 1)
and use this exact solution to check the accuracy of your numerical calculations.
Question 15. Show that the nite dierence algorithm
2u
1
+u
2
= U
0
+
h
2
12
_
f
0
+ 10f
1
+f
2
_
.
.
.
u
k1
2u
k
+u
k+1
=
h
2
12
_
f
k1
+ 10f
k
+f
k+1
_
.
.
.
u
n2
2u
n1
= U
1
+
h
2
12
_
f
n2
+ 10f
n1
+f
n
_
for the solution of the dierential equation u
xx
= f(x) with boundary conditions u(0) = U
0
and
u(1) = U
1
is O(h
4
) accurate.
Question 16. What is the leading error term in the nite dierence formula
2
u(x, y)
xy

u(x +h, y +h) u(x +h, y h) u(x h, y +h) +u(x h, y h)
4h
2
?
[Think about it before expanding, also see degree exam 2000!]
Question 17. Consider the dierential equation x
2
u
xx
+ xu
x
+ u = x with boundary conditions
u() = u(1) = 0. Use the substitution x = e
t
to reformulate the problem as one for u(t). Now discre-
tise in t (using second order central dierences). Using N = 2, 4, ... (just a few by hand/calculator
or quite a few using a PC) compare results with those given in the lecture. Why is this better?
Question 18. Write down the central dierence/Newton Raphson method for the non-linear equa-
tion
u
xx
+ 2uu
x
+u = sin 2x, u(0) = u() = 0.
[Can you spot one exact solution?]
Chapter 3
Elliptic equations in two dimensions
The nite dierence algorithm can be applied to the solution of partial dierential equations. The
procedure will be demonstrated with respect to partial dierential equations in two dimensions. Let
D R
2
be such that f = f(x, y) has Taylors series expansion
f(x +h, y +k) = f(x, y) +hf
x
+kf
y
+
1
2
_
h
2
f
xx
+ 2hkf
xy
+k
2
f
yy
_
+
1
6
_
h
3
f
xxx
+ 3h
2
kf
xxy
+ 3hk
2
f
xyy
+k
3
f
yyy
_
+
at (x, y) D for suitable values of h and k. Suppose that D can be divided into rectangles by the
nodes (x
0
+ ih, y
0
+ jk) where i = 0, 1, n and j = 0, 1, , m. In particular, the usual central
dierence approximations are valid and give
f(x
i
, y
j
)
x
=
f
i+1,j
f
i1,j
2h
+O(h
2
)
f(x
i
, y
j
)
y
=
f
i,j+1
f
i,j1
2k
+O(k
2
)
2
f(x
i
, y
j
)
x
2
=
f
i+1,j
2f
i,j
+f
i1,j
h
2
+O(h
2
)
2
f(x
i
, y
j
)
y
2
=
f
i,j+1
2f
i,j
+f
i,j1
k
2
+O(k
2
)
where f
i,j
= f(x
0
+ ih, y
0
+ jk). The only new feature to arise in two dimensions is the mixed
derivative f
xy
. It may be shown that
2
f(x
i
, y
j
)
xy
=
f
i+1,j+1
f
i1,j+1
f
i+1,j1
+f
i1,j1
4hk
+O(hk) .
To maintain simplicity, it will henceforth be assumed that h = k, that is, the resolutions of the
mesh in the x and y directions are identical so that the region in which the solution is sought is now
partitioned into squares of side h by the nodes. The simplied nite dierence formulae for the rst
39
40 CHAPTER 3. ELLIPTIC EQUATIONS IN TWO DIMENSIONS
and second order partial derivatives of f become
f(x
i
, y
j
)
x
=
f
i+1,j
f
i1,j
2h
+O(h
2
)
f(x
i
, y
j
)
y
=
f
i,j+1
f
i,j1
2h
+O(h
2
)
2
f(x
i
, y
j
)
x
2
=
f
i+1,j
2f
i,j
+f
i1,j
h
2
+O(h
2
)
2
f(x
i
, y
j
)
y
2
=
f
i,j+1
2f
i,j
+f
i,j1
h
2
+O(h
2
)
2
f(x
i
, y
j
)
xy
=
f
i+1,j+1
f
i1,j+1
f
i+1,j1
+f
i1,j1
4h
2
+O(h
2
) .
3.1 Computational molecule
The computational molecule is a convenient way to describe the complex mix of variables necessary
to construct the nite dierence representation of a dierential operator. For example, Laplaces
equation at (x
i
, y
j
) in two dimensions has nite dierence form
u
xx
+u
yy
=
u
i+1,j
2u
i,j
+u
i1,j
h
2
+
u
i,j+1
2u
i,j
+u
i,j1
h
2
+O(h
2
)
=
u
i+1,j
+u
i,j+1
4u
i,j
+u
i,j1
+u
i1,j
h
2
+O(h
2
) = 0 .
The centre of the molecule is positioned at the node at which the operator is to be expressed and
the entries of the molecule indicate the proportion of the surrounding nodes to be mixed in order to
obtain the nite dierence representation of the operator. Assuming the molecular orientation
(i 1, j + 1) (i, j + 1) (i + 1, j + 1)
(i 1, j) (i, j) (i + 1, j)
(i 1, j 1) (i 1, j 1) (i 1, j 1)
the Laplace operator corresponds to the computational molecule
u
xx
+u
yy
=
1
h
2
0 1 0
1 4 1
0 1 0
Similarly, the mixed derivative operator corresponds to the computational molecule
u
xy
=
1
4h
2
1 0 1
0 0 0
1 0 1
3.1. COMPUTATIONAL MOLECULE 41
Example Construct the nite dierence scheme to solve the Poisson equation
u
xx
+u
yy
= f(x, y)
in the domain D = [(x, y) (0, 1) (0, 1)] subject to the boundary condition u = 0 on D.
Solution The computational molecule at each interior node gives the set of equations
u
i+1,j
+u
i,j+1
4u
i,j
+u
i,j1
+u
i1,j
= h
2
f
i,j
where (i, j) (1, , n 1) (1, , n 1). One must solve a set of (n 1)
2
linear equations for
the solution at each internal node of D. The fundamental dierence between the one-dimensional
and higher dimensional nite dierence schemes lies in the fact that any node has more than two
neighbours contributing to the numerical solution (in fact 4 in the case of the Poisson equation).
Consequently, the tri-diagonal structure of the one-dimensional problem is lost since nodes close
geographically to each other can no longer be numbered sequentially. An enumeration scheme for
the unknowns u
i,j
is required. The choice is ultimately arbitrary, but one obvious possibility is
v
i+(n1)(j1)
= u
i,j
, (i, j) (1, , n 1) (1, , n 1) .
The vector V of unknowns has dimension (n 1)
2
and enumerates the nodes from left to right (in
the direction of increasing x) and from bottom to top (in the direction of increasing y). The vector
V is the solution of the linear system AV = F where A is a constant matrix and F is a vector of
dimension (n 1)
2
with k
th
entry F
k
= h
2
f
i,j
. The k
th
row of A will contain the elements of the
Laplacian computational module appropriately positioned. The dierent possibilities are
(a) If i = 1 then A
k,k
= 4 and A
k,k+1
= 1.
(b) If 1 < i < (n 1) then A
k,k1
= 1, A
k,k
= 4 and A
k,k+1
= 1.
(c) If i = n 1 then A
k,k1
= 1 and A
k,k
= 4.
For each value of k, the value of j is examined. If j = 1 then A
k,k+n1
= 1, while if 1 < j < (n 1)
then A
k,kn+1
= A
k,k+n1
= 1, and nally if j = n 1 then A
k,kn+1
= 1. The structure of A may
be represented eciently by the block matrix form
A =
_
_
T I 0 0 0
I T I 0 0
0 I T I 0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

0 0 I T
_
_
where I is the (n 1) (n 1) identity matrix and T is the (n 1) (n 1) tri-diagonal matrix
T =
_
_
4 1 0 0 0
1 4 1 0 0
0 1 4 1 0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

0 0 1 4
_
_
.
Suppose now that Gaussian elimination is used to solve these equations. It is clear that the process
generates non-zero entries where none entry existed previously. Thus Gaussian elimination is no
longer appropriate and another approach, one that can take advantage of the sparsity of A, is required.
3.2 Iterative methods
Iterative methods are most appropriate for the solution of equations AX = B when A is a sparse
matrix. A matrix A is sparse whenever it is benecial to store only the non-zero elements of A.
Various procedures are used to store sparse matrices; some are general and some are specic to
particular matrix types (e.g. tri-diagonal matrices).
3.2.1 A general representation of a sparse matrix
The non-zero elements of a general sparse matrix are often stored as a vector together with the row
and column indices in which they appear. However, the way in which this is achieved involves a
degree of subtlety. The entries of A are stored sequentially row-by-row together with the associated
column index. An auxiliary vector, say r, of dimension one more than that of the number of rows of
A stores the number of non-zero elements in the k
th
row of A indirectly in the dierence r
k+1
r
k
.
This representation allows ecient multiplication by the matrix A.
Example Find the sparse representation of the matrix
A =
_
_
0.0 1.0 2.3 0.0 0.0
2.0 0.0 0.3 3.1 0.0
0.0 1.0 0.4 0.0 1.5
0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0
0.2 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0
_
_
3.2. ITERATIVE METHODS 43
Solution The representation consists of the vectors
a = [1.0, 2.3, 2.0, 0.3, 3.1, 1.0, 0.4, 1.5, 3.4, 0.2, 2.0]
c = [2, 3, 1, 3, 4, 2, 3, 5, 4, 1, 3]
r = [0, 2, 5, 8, 9, 11]
In practice, these would be enclosed in a structure.
3.2.2 The algorithms
General iterative methods for the solution of AX = B usually begin by rewriting this equation in
the iterative form
PX + (AP)X = B
where P is an arbitrary non-singular matrix of the same dimension as A. Thereafter the solution of
AX = B is derived by iterating
PX
k+1
= B (AP)X
k
, X
0
given. (3.1)
The ecacy of this iterative algorithm requires that P possess two important properties of P.
Equation (3.1) must be easy to solve for X
k+1
. For example, this is true if P is a diagonal
(Gauss-Jacobi), an upper triangular matrix (solution by backward substitution) or a lower
triangular matrix (Gauss-Seidel) for which the solution is obtained by forward substitution.
The matrix I P
1
A must be a contraction mapping. This requires the eigenvalues of I P
1
A
to lie within the unit circle. Clearly a particularly good choice for P occurs when P
1
is a good
estimate for the inverse of A.
Let A = D +L + U where D is the main diagonal of A, and L and U denote respectively the lower
and upper triangular sections of A. Two important choices for P are:-
Algorithm P H = I P
1
A
Gauss-Jacobi D D
1
(L +U)
Gauss-Seidel D +L (D +L)
1
U
The iterative scheme (3.1) will converge to the solution of AX = B from any starting value X
0
provided || I P
1
A|| < 1, that is, (I P
1
A) is a contraction mapping in the vector space of the
solution. This requires that all the eigenvalues of (I P
1
A) lie within the unit circle. The proof of
this result relies on the fact that every matrix is unitarily similar to an upper triangular matrix.
Gauss-Jacobi algorithm The Gauss-Jacobi algorithm corresponds to the choice P = D. With
this choice of P, it follows that H = (I P
1
A) = D
1
(L +U) and the iterative scheme is
X
n+1
= D
1
B D
1
(L +U)X
n
, X
0
given.
Prior to implementing this algorithm, the equations are often re-ordered so as to maximise the product
of the elements of D. In this way, || D
1
(L +U) || is minimised in a straight forward way.
Gauss-Seidel algorithm The Gauss-Seidel algorithm corresponds to the choice P = D+L. With
this choice of P, it follow that H = (I P
1
A) = (D +L)
1
U and the iterative scheme is
X
(n+1)
= (D +L)
1
B (D +L)
1
UX
(n)
, X
(0)
given .
This scheme will converge provided (D +L)
1
U is a contraction mapping.
Example Use the Gauss-Jacobi and Gauss-Seidel algorithms to solve the system of equations
8x + y z = 8
2x + y + 9z = 12
x 7y + 2z = 4 .
Solution The original equations are re-order to give
8x + y z = 8
x 7y + 2z = 4
2x + y + 9z = 12
_
_

x = 1 y/8 +z/8
y = 4/7 +x/7 + 2z/7
z = 4/3 2x/9 y/9
The re-ordered equations form the basis of the Gauss-Jacobi and Gauss-Seidel iterative scheme, which
in this instance are respectively
Gauss-Jacobi
x
(n+1)
1
= 1
x
(n)
2
8
+
x
(n)
3
8
x
(n+1)
2
=
4
7
+
1
7
x
(n)
1
+
2
7
x
(n)
3
x
(n+1)
3
=
4
3

2
9
x
(n)
1

x
(n)
2
9
Gauss-Seidel
x
(n+1)
1
= 1
x
(n)
2
8
+
x
(n)
3
8
x
(n+1)
2
=
4
7
+
1
7
x
(n+1)
1
+
2
7
x
(n)
3
x
(n+1)
3
=
4
3

2
9
x
(n+1)
1

1
9
x
(n+1)
2
.
Both schemes take the starting values x
(0)
1
= x
(0)
2
= x
(0)
3
= 0. Convergence is rapid with the solution
x
1
= x
2
= x
3
= 1 being obtained approximately after 3 iterations.
Iteration x
1
x
2
x
3
x
1
x
2
x
3
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 1
4
7
4
3
1
5
7
65
63
2
53
56
23
21
26
27
253
252
1781
1764
1
3.2.3 Comparison of Gauss-Jacobi and Gauss-Seidel
Although no general comparisons between the Gauss-Jacobi and the Gauss-Seidel algorithms are
known, comparisons exist for some particular classes of matrices which occur often in practice. Per-
haps the best known of these results is the Stein-Rosenberg theorem. The theorem applies to matrices
A with the property that either each diagonal entry of A is positive and all o-diagonal entries of
A are non-positive, or alternatively, each diagonal entry of A is negative and all o-diagonal entries
of A are non-negative. For this class of matrices, the Gauss-Jacobi and Gauss-Seidel algorithms
either both converge or both diverge. If both converge then Gauss-Seidel will converge faster than
Gauss-Jacobi. Alternatively, if both diverge then Gauss-Seidel will diverge faster than Gauss-Jacobi.
One point to note, however, is that Gauss-Seidel is intrinsically a serial algorithm while Gauss-Jacobi
is intrinsically a parallel algorithm. The optimal choice of algorithm may therefore depend on the
properties of the computing machine.
Example Determine whether or not the Gauss-Jacobi algorithm can be made to converge for the
matrix
A =
_
_
1 3 0
2 2 1
0 1 2
_
_
.
Solution It is necessary to compute the eigenvalues of D
1
(L + U), that is, solve the equation
det(D
1
(L +U) +I) = 0. Since D is non-singular then satises det(L +U +D) = 0. The rows
of A are re-ordered by interchanging rows 1 and 2 to maximise the likelihood that D
1
(L + U) is
a contraction matrix. The eigenvalues satisfy
2 2 1
1 3 0
0 1 2
= 12
3
4 + 1 = 0 .
The stationary values of this cubic function satisfy 36
2
4 = 0 from which it follows that the cubic has
a minimum turning point at (1/3, 1/9) and a maximum turning point at (1/3, 17/9). Therefore the
cubic has exactly one real solution and it lies in the interval (1, 1/3). The remaining solutions are
complex conjugate pairs. The product of the three solutions is 1/12 and so the complex conjugate
pair solutions must lie within a circle of radius 1/2 about the origin. Therefore all eigenvalues lie
within the unit circle and so the Gauss-Jacobi algorithm based on the re-arranged matrix
_
_
2 2 1
1 3 0
0 1 2
_
_
will converge. You should show that the Gauss-Jacobi algorithm based on the original matrix diverges.
3.2.4 Diagonal dominance
An nn matrix A is said to be diagonally dominated if the sum (in modulus) of all the o-diagonal
elements in any row is less than the modulus of the diagonal element in that row. Let V be a vector
of dimension n, then the supremum norm of V is dened by
|| V || = max
1jn
| V
j
|
In eect, this norm measures the distance between two vectors as the modulus of the largest dierence
between their paired elements. If a matrix is diagonally dominated, it can be shown that the Gauss-
Jacobi and Gauss-Seidel schemes are guaranteed to converge in the supremum norm. To prove these
results, it is convenient to dene E = D
1
L and F = D
1
U then E is a strictly lower triangular
matrix and F is a strictly upper triangular matrix.
Gauss-Jacobi
Suppose A is diagonally dominated. Since D
1
(L+U) = E+F, then it is necessary to demonstrated
that || D
1
(L+U)V || = || (E +F)V || < || V || for any vector V . The denition of D, L and U from
A ensures that D
1
A = I +D
1
L +D
1
U = I (E +F). Therefore E +F = I D
1
A so that
[(E +F)V ]
i
=
n
q=1
[(E +F)]
iq
V
q
=
n
q=1,q=i
a
iq
V
q
a
ii
for all vectors V . Thus
[(E +F)V ]
i
q=1,q=i
a
iq
V
q
a
ii
q=1,q=i
a
iq
a
ii
| V
q
| < max
1qn,q=i
| V
q
|
The supremum norm is calculated by considering all values of i. Since || (E +F)V || < || V ||, then it
follows immediately that (E +F) is a contraction mapping if A is a diagonally dominated matrix.
If diagonal dominance is weakened by allowing the sum of the absolute values of the o-diagonal
elements in any row to equal the modulus of the diagonal element in that row, then it can no longer
be asserted that D
1
(L+U) is a contraction mapping, and the eigenvalues of D
1
(L+U) must now
be calculated.
Gauss-Seidel
Suppose A is diagonally dominated. Observe rst that
(D +L)
1
U = [D(I +D
1
L)]
1
U = (I +D
1
L)
1
D
1
U = (I E)
1
F .
It must be shown that || (D +L)
1
UV || = || (I E)
1
FV || < || V || for any vector V . Since E is a
strictly lower triangular n n matrix then E
n
= 0 and it now follows that
(I E)
1
= I +E +E
2
+E
n1
.
The individual elements of (I E)
1
may be compared to get
| (I E)
1
| = | I +E +E
2
+ +E
n1
|
< 1 +| E | +| E |
2
+ +| E |
n1
= (I | E |)
1
.
Recall from the analysis of the Gauss-Jacobi algorithm that (| E | +| F | )| V | | V |. This inequality
may be re-expressed in the form | F || V | (I | E | ) | V | which in turn gives (I | E | )
1
| F || V |
| V |. Therefore, given any vector V , it follows that
|| (I E)
1
FV || < || V || .
and so (D +L)
1
U is a contraction mapping if A is a diagonally dominated matrix.
Example Investigate the convergence of the Gauss-Seidel algorithm for the coecient matrices
(i)
_
_
3 1 1
1 2 0
1 2 4
_
_
(ii)
_
_
3 2 1
1 2 0
1 2 4
_
_
.
Solution The rst matrix exhibits strict diagonal dominance and so the Gauss-Seidel algorithm is
guaranteed to converge. On the other hand, diagonal dominance is not strict for the second matrix
and so it is necessary to compute the eigenvalues of (D+L)
1
U. Suppose (D+L)
1
UV = V then
[(D +L) +U]V = 0 and so the eigenvalues are solutions of
det[(D +L) +U] =
3 2 1
2 0
2 4
= 12
2
(2 + 1) = 0 .
The eigenvalues are = 0 (twice) and = 1/2. Since all eigenvalues lie within the unit circle then
the Gauss-Seidel algorithm converges on this occasion.
Example Construct the nite dierence scheme for the solution of the partial dierential equation
u
xx
+u
yy
+a(x, y)u
x
+b(x, y)u
y
+c(x, y)u = f
with Dirichlet boundary conditions. Investigate conditions under which the resulting system of linear
equations will be diagonally dominated.
Solution The central dierence representation of the dierential equation is
u
i1,j
+u
i,j1
4u
i,j
+u
i,j+1
+u
i+1,j
h
2
+a
i,j
u
i+1,j
u
i1,j
2h
+b
i,j
u
i,j+1
u
i,j1
2h
+c
i,j
u
i,j
= f
i,j
.
This equation is multiplied by 2h
2
and like terms collected together to obtain
(2 ha
i,j
)u
i1,j
+ (2 hb
i,j
)u
i,j1
(8 2h
2
c
i,j
)u
i,j
+ (2 +hb
i,j
)u
i,j+1
+ (2 +ha
i,j
)u
i+1,j
= 2h
2
f
i,j
.
Strict diagonal dominance requires that
| 8 2h
2
c
i,j
| > | 2 ha
i,j
| +| 2 hb
i,j
| +| 2 +hb
i,j
| +| 2 +ha
i,j
| .
For suitably small h, this inequality becomes
8 2h
2
c
i,j
> 2 ha
i,j
+ 2 hb
i,j
+ 2 +hb
i,j
+ 2 +ha
i,j
c
i,j
< 0 .
Thus the nite dierence representation of the partial dierential equation will be strictly diagonally
dominated provided c(x, y) < 0 in the region in which the solution is sought.
Example Construct the nite dierence scheme for the solution of the partial dierential equation
u
xx
+u
yy
= 2 , (x, y) D, u = 0 on D,
where D = (1, 1) (1, 1). Iterate the nite dierence scheme for chosen h, and use the exact
solution
u(x, y) = 1 y
2
32
k=0
(1)
k
cosh
_
(2k+1)x
2
_
cos
_
(2k+1)y
2
_
(2k + 1)
3
cosh
_
(2k+1)
2
_
for the boundary value problem to investigate the convergence of the nite dierence scheme.
Solution The nite dierence scheme to solve u
xx
+u
yy
= 2 is
u
i1,j
+u
i,j1
4u
i,j
+u
i,j+1
+u
i+1,j
= 2h
2
,
which may be re-expressed in the form
u
i,j
=
1
4
_
u
i1,j
+u
i,j1
+u
i,j+1
+u
i+1,j
_
+
h
2
2
(3.2)
with h = 2/n, x
i
= 1 + ih and y
j
= 1 + jh. Equation (3.2) may be used as the basis of the
iterative algorithm
u
(k+1)
i,j
=
1
4
_
u
(k)
i1,j
+u
(k)
i,j1
+u
(k)
i,j+1
+u
(k)
i+1,j
_
+
h
2
2
, u
(0)
i,j
= 0 (3.3)
where the initial solution is taken to be u = 0, which satises the boundary condition. For example,
when n = 2 then u
(1)
1,1
= u
(2)
1,1
= = h
2
/2 and the iterative algorithm clearly terminates after two
iterations. To control the number of Gauss-Seidel iteration, the root mean square error norm
E
n
=
_
_
1
(n + 1)
2
n
i,j=0
u
new
i,j
u
old
i,j
2
_
_
1/2
=
1
n + 1
_
_
n
i,j=0
u
new
i,j
u
old
i,j
2
_
_
1/2
is used to terminate Gauss-Seidel iteration whenever E
n
< 10
6
. The result of this procedure, now
measuring the numerical error against the true solution, is given in Table 3.1.
n ITER E
n
E
n1
/E
n
2 2 0.0893708
4 19 0.0207940 4.298
8 70 0.0048225 4.312
16 245 0.0011738 4.109
32 837 0.0003828 3.067
64 2770 0.0004880 0.784
128 8779 0.0016882 0.289
Table 3.1:
Comparison of L
2
errors in the
solution of u
xx
+ u
yy
= 2
when using Gauss-Seidel itera-
tion and the termination con-
dition E
n
< 10
6
.
Clearly the Gauss-Seidel algorithm is using many more iterations to produce an inferior result as the
mesh is rened by increasing n. This is a counter-intuitive result. The diculty lies in the stopping
criterion. The use of an absolute termination condition can be problematic when an iterative pro-
cedure converges very slowly as happens here. The usual way to ameliorate this hazard is to use a
termination condition which becomes increasingly demanding as the number of iterations increases.
One popular choice is to make the termination condition inversely proportional to the number of iter-
ations performed. The same calculation repeated with the termination condition E
n
< 10
5
/ITER,
where ITER counts the number of iterations of the Gauss-Seidel algorithm, gives
n ITER E
n
E
n1
/E
n
ITER/n
2
2 2 0.0893708 0.500
4 20 0.0207934 4.298 1.250
8 83 0.0048172 4.316 1.297
16 336 0.0011487 4.194 1.313
32 1344 0.0002802 4.100 1.313
64 5379 0.0000696 4.024 1.313
128 21516 0.0000178 3.901 1.313
Table 3.2:
Comparison of L
2
errors in the
solution of u
xx
+ u
yy
= 2
when using Gauss-Seidel itera-
tion and the termination con-
dition E
n
< 10
5
/ITER.
The fact that ITER/n
2
is eectively constant is simply another manifestation of the fact that the
numerical accuracy is proportional to h
2
, that is 1/n
2
.
Multi-grid procedure
The single grid procedure can be improved by using a multi-grid approach in which the mesh is
progressively rened by halving h, or equivalently, doubling n. The solution for n can be used as the
starting conguration for an iteration based on 2n. Values of the solution at the intermediate points
introduced by the multi-grid approach can be obtained by linear interpolation of the existing grid
points. Specically
u
2i+1,j
=
u
2i,j
+u
2i+2,j
2
, u
i,2j+1
=
u
i,2j
+u
i,2j+2
2
.
Table 3.3 illustrates the use of this procedure for the problem under discussion.
n ITER E
n
E
n1
/E
n
ITER/n
2
2 2 0.0893708 0.500
4 20 0.0207933 4.298 1.250
8 80 0.0048171 4.317 1.250
16 316 0.0011487 4.193 1.234
32 1252 0.0002802 4.100 1.223
64 4989 0.0000697 4.022 1.218
128 19923 0.0000179 3.892 1.216
Table 3.3:
Comparison of L
2
errors in the
solution of u
xx
+ u
yy
= 2
when using Gauss-Seidel iter-
ation, a multi-grid procedure
and the termination condition
|Error| < 10
5
/ITER.
3.3. NON-RECTANGULAR DOMAINS 51
3.3 Non-rectangular domains
The nite dierence procedure can be used directly to solve the Dirichlet boundary value problem on
irregular domains with boundary curves formed by connecting line segments oriented at right angles
to each other, for example, an I beam. Other non-rectilinear regions can also be treated easily by
the nite dierence procedure if their boundary curves are coordinate lines. For example, equations
expressed in polar coordinates over the interior of a circle. Laplaces equation in polar coordinates is
2
u
r
2
+
1
r
u
r
+
1
r
2
2
u
2
= f(r, ) . (3.4)
This equation may be solved using the nite dierence procedure by taking r
i
= ih and
j
= jk in
which h = R/n and k = 2/m. Each derivative appearing in equation (3.4) may be replaced by its
nite dierence representation to get
u
i+1,j
2u
i,j
+u
i1,j
h
2
+
1
r
i
u
i+1,j
u
i1,j
2h
+
1
r
2
i
u
i,j+1
2u
i,j
+u
i,j1
k
2
= f
i,j
except at the origin. The nite dierence equation contributed by the origin may be constructed
by returning to the original cartesian version of the Laplace molecule. This molecule can be used
provided nodes of fall on the coordinate axes, that is, when m is a multiple of 4.
Finally, domains that exhibit little or no regularity are most eectively treated using nite element
methods.
Example (May 2001) Consider the boundary value problem
u
xx
+u
yy
= 2 , (x, y) D
where D is the interior of the rectangle with vertices at (0, 0), (0, 1), (1/2.0) and (1/2, 1), and the
solution is required to satisfy the boundary conditions
u(x, 0) = 1 , u(x, 1) = 0 , u(0, y) = 1 y , u
x
(1/2.y) = u
2
(1/2, y) .
(i) Construct a nite dierence representation of this problem for general h using the ctitious
nodes procedure to describe the gradient boundary condition.
(ii) Write out the specic equations to be solved in the case in which h = 1/4.
(iii) Restructure these equations in a form suitable for iteration.
Solution
(i) Take x
i
= ih and y
j
= jh where h = 1/2n. In this case i = 0, 1, , n and j = 0, 1 , 2n. The
Laplace molecule gives
u
i1,j
+u
i+1,j
+u
i,j1
+u
i,j+1
4u
i,j
= 2h
2
where i = 1, , (n 1) and j = 1, , (2n 1). The boundary conditions yield
u
0,j
= 1 jh j = 0, , 2n
u
i,0
= 1 i = 0, , n
u
i,2N
= 0 i = 0, , n
The boundary condition on x = 1/2 requires more work. The ctitious nodes procedure gives
u
n+1,j
u
n1,j
= 2hu
2
n,j
u
n1,j
+u
n+1,j
+u
n,j1
+u
n,j+1
4u
n,j
= 2h
2
_
_
j = 1, , 2n 1 .
The ctitious value u
n+1,j
is now eliminated between these equations to obtain
2u
n1,j
+ 2hu
2
n,j
+u
n,j1
+u
n,j+1
4u
n,j
= 2h
2
j = 1, , 2n 1 .
This is the nal form for the boundary condition on x = 1/2.
(ii) Now take h = 1/4 or n = 2. Let u
1
, , u
6
be the unknowns dened in the diagram
1
0
0
1/2
u = 1
u = 0
u
x
= u
2
u = 1 y

u
1
u
2
u
3
u
4
u
5
u
6
The nite dierence for h = 1/4 are therefore
u
2
+
3
4
+ 1 +u
3
4u
1
=
1
8
2u
1
+ 2hu
2
2,j
+ 1 +u
4
4u
2
=
1
8
u
4
+
1
2
+u
1
+u
5
4u
3
=
1
8
2u
3
+ 2hu
2
4
+u
2
+u
6
4u
4
=
1
8
u
6
+
1
4
+u
3
+ 0 4u
5
=
1
8
2u
5
+ 2hu
2
6
+u
4
4u
6
=
1
8
_
u
2
+u
3
4u
1
=
15
8
4u
1
+u
2
2
+ 2u
4
8u
2
=
9
4
u
4
+u
1
+u
5
4u
3
=
5
8
4u
3
+u
2
4
+ 2u
2
+ 2u
6
8u
4
=
1
4
u
6
+u
3
4u
5
=
3
8
4u
5
+u
2
6
+ 2u
4
8u
6
=
1
4
(iii) The j
th
equation is solved for u
j
to get the basic formulation of the numerical problem, which
is subsequently rewritten in iterative forma and leads to the Gauss-Seidel algorithm
u
1
=
1
4
_
u
2
+u
3
+
15
8
_
u
2
=
2
8 u
2
_
2u
1
+u
4
+
9
8
_
u
3
=
1
4
_
u
1
+u
4
+u
5
+
5
8
_
u
4
=
2
8 u
4
_
u
2
+ 2u
3
+u
6
+
1
8
_
u
5
=
1
4
_
u
3
+u
6
+
3
8
_
u
6
=
2
8 u
6
_
u
4
+ 2u
5
+
1
8
_
_
u
(k+1)
1
=
1
4
_
u
(k)
2
+u
(k)
3
+
15
8
_
u
(k+1)
2
=
2
8 u
(k)
2
_
2u
(k+1)
1
+u
(k)
4
+
9
8
_
u
(k+1)
3
=
1
4
_
u
(k+1)
1
+u
(k)
4
+u
(k)
5
+
5
8
_
u
(k+1)
4
=
2
8 u
(k)
4
_
u
(k+1)
2
+ 2u
(k+1)
3
+u
(k)
6
+
1
8
_
u
(k+1)
5
=
1
4
_
u
(k+1)
3
+u
(k)
6
+
3
8
_
u
(k+1)
6
=
2
8 u
(k)
6
_
u
(k+1)
4
+ 2u
(k+1)
5
+
1
8
_
Exercises
Question 19. Two less common molecules for the computation of u
xx
+u
yy
are
(a)
1
2h
2
1 0 1
0 4 0
1 0 1
(b)
1
6h
2
1 4 1
4 20 4
1 4 1
.
Determine the order of the error term associated with each of these molecules. Does this change if
the scheme is used to solve Laplaces equation and not a more general partial dierential equation of
which the Laplacian is a component part.
Question 20. Prove that Jacobi iteration is convergent but Gauss-Seidel iteration is divergent for
the equations
_
_
1 2 4
1/8 1 1
1 4 1
_
_
_
_
x
1
x
2
x
3
_
_
=
_
_
1
3
7
_
_
.
Question 21. The system of equations
_
_
3 2 1
2 3 2
1 2 3
_
_
_
_
x
1
x
2
x
3
_
_
=
_
_
6
7
6
_
_
,
is not diagonally dominant. Calculate the spectral radius of the iteration matrix for both the Gauss-
Jacobi and the Gauss-Seidel algorithms. What can you say about the convergence of these proce-
dures?
Question 22. The coecient matrix of a system of linear equations AX = B is dened by
A =
_
_
1 c 1
c 1 c
c
2
c 1
_
_
,
where c is real and non-zero. Find the range of values for which Gauss-Seidel iteration converges.
Will the Jacobi iteration converge when c = 2?
Question 23. Prove that pivoting is unnecessary in the LU factorisation of A if A
T
is diagonally
dominated. To establish this result you may nd it useful to establish the block matrix identity
_
_
W
T
V C
_
_
=
_
_
1 0
V
I
_
_
_
_
1 0
0 C
V W
T
_
_
_
_
W
T
0 I
_
_
Question 24. Let A be a symmetric and positive denite n n matrix.
(a) Show that each diagonal entry of A is positive.
(b) Show that H = (D +L)
1
U satises the property
D
1/2
HD
1/2
= (I +L
1
)
1
L
T
1
where L
1
is a strictly lower triangular matrix to be identied and D and L are dened from A
in the usual way.
(c) Show further that
D
1/2
AD
1/2
= I +L
1
+L
T
1
.
(d) By considering the eigenvalues of H
1
, show that the Gauss-Seidel algorithm converges for pos-
itive denite matrices.
Question 25. The torsion of an elastic beam of square cross-section requires the solution of the
boundary value problem
xx
+
yy
+ 2 = 0, (x, y) (1, 1) (1, 1),
with = 0 on the boundary of the square. First, write out the discretised scheme using a step length
h = 1/2. Now use the symmetry of the problem to reduce the number of unknowns to three. Finally,
solve the equations to show that (0, 0) 0.562 [exact solution is 0.589].
Question 26. (May 1999) Consider the equation
u
xx
+u
yy
= u
3
, (x, y) D
where D is the interior of the square with vertices (1, 1), (1, 1), (1, 1) and (1, 1), and u is
required to satisfy the boundary conditions
u
x
= 0 x = 1 , u = c y = 1
where c is a constant. You may take advantage of symmetry and assume that the solution is an even
function in x and y. Use this information to discretise the partial dierential equations and obtain
equations for u
1
, , u
6
as illustrated in the diagram.
1
-1
-1 1
u = c
u = c
u
x
= 0 u
x
= 0

u
1
u
2
u
3
u
4
u
5
u
6
You may again implement the gradient boundary conditions by either a backward dierence approx-
imation of appropriate order, or by introducing ctitious nodes beyond x = 1
Having obtained the (nonlinear) equations for the unknowns u
1
, , u
6
, devise an iterative scheme
to solve them. Ensure that your scheme is as robust as possible, that is, try to ensure that it will
converge for any initial guess and for any choice of c.
Chapter 4
Parabolic equations
4.1 Introduction
The canonical parabolic equation in one dimension is the diusion equation
u
t
= u
xx
, (x, t) (0, 1) (0, )
with initial condition u(x, 0) = f(x) and boundary conditions
u(0, t) = g
0
(t) , u(1, t) = g
1
(t) .
By contrast with elliptic equations where the same step length could often be used in each direction,
this is impossible in a parabolic equation since time and space are dierent physical variables, and
therefore cannot be equated. Let x
i
= ih be a dissection of [0, 1] with h = 1/n, then the nite
dierence representation of the diusion equation is
du
i
dt
=
u
i+1
2u
i
+u
i1
h
2
, u
0
= g
0
(t) , u
n
= g
1
(t) .
Thus the solution of the diusion equation is constructed with respect to time by integrating a family
of (n 1) ordinary dierential equations in which the i
th
unknown is the time course of u(x
i
, t).
These equations are solved with the initial condition u
i
(0) = f(x
i
). In order to proceed further, it is
necessary to develop ecient procedures to integrate large families of ordinary dierential equations.
4.1.1 Eulers method
Let y(t) be the solution of the initial value problem
dy
dt
= f(y, t) , t > 0 , y(0) = y
0
.
Let t
j
= jk where k is the discretisation of time and let y
j
= y(t
j
), then Eulers method asserts that
y
j+1
= y
j
+kf(y
j
, t
j
) .
57
58 CHAPTER 4. PARABOLIC EQUATIONS
The scheme is derived from the Taylor series expansion
y(t +k) = y(t) +k
dy(t)
dt
+
k
2
2
d
2
y(t)
dt
2
+O(k
3
)
by replacing dy/dt with f(y, t) and ignoring subsequent terms. Eulers scheme is an explicit algo-
rithm because y(t + k) appears only on one side of the scheme. Let u
i,j
= u(x
i
, t
j
), then Eulers
scheme applied to the diusion equation gives
u
i,j+1
= u
i,j
+r (u
i+1,j
2u
i,j
+u
i1,j
)
where r = k/h
2
is called the Courant Number. This nite dierence scheme may be rewritten
u
i,j+1
r u
i+1,j
(1 2r) u
i,j
r u
i1,j
= 0
which in turn leads to the computational molecule
u
t
u
xx
=
0 1 0
r (1 2r) r
0 0 0
Example
Solve the diusion equation u
t
= u
xx
where x (0, 1) with initial condition u(x, 0) = sin(2x) and
boundary conditions u(0, t) = u(1, t) = 0. The exact solution is u(x, t) = e
4
2
t
sin(2x)
Solution
k values for n = 8 k values for n = 16 k values for n = 32
t u(1/4, t) 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
2
10
3
10
4
0.01 0.67 0.63 0.68 0.69 0.56 0.62 0.63 0.59 0.66 0.66
0.02 0.45 0.39 0.47 0.47 0.34 0.42 0.42 0.36 0.44 0.45
0.03 0.31 0.24 0.32 0.32 0.21 0.28 0.29 0.22 0.29 0.30
0.04 0.21 0.15 0.22 0.22 0.13 0.19 0.19 0.13 23.6 0.20
0.05 0.14 0.10 0.15 0.15 0.08 0.13 0.13 0.08 0.14
0.06 0.09 0.06 0.10 0.11 0.05 0.09 0.09 0.05 0.09
0.07 0.06 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.06
0.08 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.04
0.09 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.03
0.10 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02
0.11 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 1.54 0.01
0.12 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 59.6 0.01
0.13 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Note how the ecacy of the method depends on the size of r - small h entails even smaller k.
4.1. INTRODUCTION 59
4.1.2 Richardsons method
Richardsons method replaces the time derivative by its central dierence formula
du
i
dt
=
u
i,j+1
u
i,j1
2k
+O(k
2
) .
The result is the Richardson nite dierence scheme
u
i,j+1
u
i,j1
=
2k
h
2
(u
i+1,j
2u
i,j
+u
i1,j
) = 2r (u
i+1,j
2u
i,j
+u
i1,j
)
with computational molecule
u
t
u
xx
=
0 1 0
2r 4r 2r
0 1 0
One diculty with the Richardson scheme arises at j = 0 since the backward solution u
i,1
does not
exist. One way around this diculty is to use the Euler scheme for the rst step of the Richardson
scheme. To investigate the eectiveness of the Richardson algorithm, the scheme is started with
j = 1. The initial condition is used to obtain values of u
i,0
and the exact solution is used to get
values for u
i,1
. Values for u
i,j
with j > 1 are obtained by iterating the scheme. This arrangement
overstates the eectiveness of the Richardson scheme since the solutions at j = 0 and j = 1 are exact.
t u(1/4, t) 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
2
10
3
10
4
0.01 0.67 0.49 0.66 0.68 0.44 0.60 0.62 0.46 0.64
0.02 0.45 0.30 0.45 0.47 0.28 0.41 0.42 0.30 23.4
0.03 0.31 0.27 0.31 0.32 0.22 0.28 0.29 0.23
0.04 0.21 0.10 0.21 0.22 0.11 0.16 2.08 0.12
0.05 0.14 0.19 0.14 0.15 0.13 0.13
0.06 0.09 0.04 0.09 0.10 0.00 0.02
0.07 0.06 0.22 0.06 0.07 0.13 0.12
0.08 0.04 0.21 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.09
0.09 0.03 0.38 0.00 0.03 0.21 1.14
0.10 0.02 0.49 0.02 0.02 0.26 73.7
0.11 0.01 0.75 0.05 0.01 0.40
0.12 0.01 1.05 0.08 0.00 0.46
0.13 0.01 1.53 0.12 0.01 1.62
0.14 0.00 2.20 0.19 0.01 48.1
0.15 0.00 3.18 0.34 0.02
Table 4.1: Calculations illustrating the use of Richardsons algorithm to solve u
t
= u
xx
with initial condition u(x, 0) = sin(2x) and boundary conditions u(0, t) = u(1, t) = 0.
Table 4.1 illustrates the use of Richardsons algorithm to solve the initial boundary problem discussed
previously. Richardsons algorithm is unstable for the choices of h and k in this table. In fact, it
will be shown later that the algorithm is unstable for all choices of h and k. This result, however, is
not obvious a priori and is counter-intuitive in the respect that the treatment of the time derivative
is more accurate than the Euler scheme and so one would expect the Richardson algorithm to be
superior to the Euler algorithm.
4.1.3 Dufort-Frankel method
The Dufort-Frankel method is a modication of the Richardson method in which u
i,j
is replaced by
its time averaged value, that is,
u
i,j
=
u
i,j+1
+u
i,j1
2
+O(k
2
)
With this modication of the Richardson algorithm, we get the Dufort-Frankel algorithm
u
i,j+1
u
i,j1
2k
=
1
h
2
_
u
i+1,j
2
1
2
(u
i,j+1
+u
i,j1
) +u
i1,j
_
.
Taking r = k/h
2
, the Dufort-Frankel algorithm becomes
(1 + 2r)u
i,j+1
(1 2r)u
i,j1
2r u
i+1,j
2ru
i1,j
= 0
with computational molecule
u
t
u
xx
=
0 1 + 2r 0
2r 0 2r
0 1 + 2r 0
Table 4.2 illustrates the result of using the Dufort-Frankel algorithm to solve the original partial
dierential equation by iterating
u
i,j+1
=
1 2r
1 + 2r
u
i,j1
+
2r
1 + 2r
u
i+1,j
+
2r
1 + 2r
u
i1,j
taking u
i,0
from the boundary condition and u
i,1
from the exact solution. The numerical scheme is
clearly more stable with no evidence of numerical blow-up.
t u(1/4, t) 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
2
10
3
10
4
0.01 0.67 0.41 0.66 0.68 0.34 0.60 0.62 0.35 0.63 0.66
0.02 0.45 0.24 0.45 0.47 0.11 0.40 0.42 0.05 0.42 0.44
0.03 0.31 0.14 0.31 0.32 0.06 0.27 0.29 0.22 0.28 0.30
0.04 0.21 0.08 0.21 0.22 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.46 0.18 0.20
0.05 0.14 0.05 0.15 0.15 0.22 0.12 0.13 0.66 0.12 0.14
0.06 0.09 0.03 0.10 0.11 0.23 0.08 0.09 0.82 0.08 0.09
0.07 0.06 0.02 0.07 0.07 0.20 0.06 0.06 0.93 0.05 0.06
0.08 0.04 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.16 0.04 0.04 1.00 0.04 0.04
0.09 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.11 0.03 0.03 1.02 0.02 0.03
0.10 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.02 1.01 0.02 0.02
0.11 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.96 0.01 0.01
0.12 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.88 0.01 0.01
0.13 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.77 0.00 0.01
0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.00
0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.00
Table 4.2: Calculations illustrating the use of Dufort-Frankel algorithm to solve u
t
= u
xx
with initial condition u(x, 0) = sin(2x) and boundary conditions u(0, t) = u(1, t) = 0.
However, it would appear that the process of increasing n does not in itself ensure a more accurate
solution. Spatial renement cannot be achieved without an accompanying temporal renement.
Table 4.3 repeats some of these calculations with a wide range of spatial discretisations. The most
important point to observe from this Table is that the scheme appears to converge as n increases,
but the convergence is not to the true solution of the partial dierential equation.
n = 32 n = 320 n = 3200
t u(1/4, t) k = 10
2
k = 10
3
k = 10
4
0.01 0.6738 0.3477 0.5742 0.6021
0.02 0.4540 0.0218 0.1873 0.2083
0.03 0.3059 0.3038 0.1993 0.1853
0.04 0.2062 0.6290 0.5854 0.5783
0.05 0.1389 0.9537 0.9710 0.9708
Table 4.3:
The exact and numerical values of
u(1/4, t) for the solution of the dif-
fusion equation u
t
= u
xx
with ini-
tial condition u(x, 0) = sin(2x)
and boundary conditions u(0, t) =
u(1, t) = 0 are shown.
This is the worst possible scenario. Without knowing the exact solution, one might (erroneously)
take the result of this numerical calculation to be a reasonable approximation to the exact solution
of the partial dierential equation.
4.1.4 Crank-Nicolson method
The Crank-Nicolson algorithm averages not only u
i,j
but also u
i+1,j
and u
i1,j
. Therefore the Crank-
Nicolson formulation of the diusion equation is
u
i,j+1
u
i,j1
2k
=
1
2h
2
_
u
i+1,j+1
+u
i1,j1
2(u
i,j+1
+u
i,j1
) +u
i1,j+1
+u
i1,j1
_
.
This equation can be re-expressed in the form
u
i,(j1)+2
u
i,(j1)
2k
=
1
2h
2
_
u
i+1,(j1)+2
+u
i1,(j1)
2(u
i,(j1)+2
+u
i,(j1)
) +u
i1,(j1)+2
+u
i1,(j1)
_
.
In particular, the value of the solution at time t
j
nowhere enters the algorithm which in practice
advances the solution from t
j1
to t
j+1
through a time step of length 2k. By reinterpreting k to be
2k, the Crank-Nicolson algorithm becomes
u
i,j+1
u
i,j
k
=
1
2h
2
_
u
i+1,j+1
+u
i+1,j
2(u
i,j+1
+u
i,j
) +u
i1,j+1
+u
i1,j
_
.
The Courant number r = k/h
2
is now introduced to obtain
u
i,j+1
u
i,j
=
r
2
_
u
i+1,j+1
+u
i+1,j
2(u
i,j+1
+u
i,j
) +u
i1,j+1
+u
i1,j
_
.
which may be re-arranged to give
r
2
u
i+1,j+1
+ (1 +r) u
i,j+1
r
2
u
i1,j+1
=
r
2
u
i+1,j
+ (1 r) u
i,j
+
r
2
u
i1,j
.
The computational module corresponding to the Crank-Nicolson algorithm is therefore
u
t
u
xx
=
r/2 1 +r r/2
r/2 1 +r r/2
0 0 0
.
Let U
(j)
= (u
0,j
, u
1,j
, , u
n,j
) be the vector of u values at time t
j
then the Crank-Nicolson algo-
rithm for the solution of the diusion equation u
t
= u
xx
with Dirichlet boundary conditions may be
expressed in the form
T
L
U
(j+1)
= T
R
U
(j)
+F
(j)
in which T
L
and T
R
are tri-diagonal matrices. The rst and last rows of these matrices contain the
boundary conditions which may also arise in the expression for F
(j)
. The initial solution is determined
from the initial conditions and subsequent solutions are obtained by solving a tri-diagonal system of
equations. Table 4.4 gives the solution of the original problem using the Crank-Nicolson algorithm.
t u(1/4, t) 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
2
10
3
10
4
0.01 0.67 0.68 0.69 0.69 0.62 0.63 0.63 0.66 0.66 0.66
0.02 0.45 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.44 0.45 0.45
0.03 0.31 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.28 0.29 0.29 0.30 0.30 0.30
0.04 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.20
0.05 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14
0.06 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09
0.07 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06
0.08 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
0.09 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
0.10 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
0.11 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.12 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.13 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.14 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Table 4.4: The Crank Nicolson algorithm is used to calculate the numerical
solution of the diusion equation u
t
= u
xx
with initial condition u(x, 0) =
sin(2x) and boundary conditions u(0, t) = u(1, t) = 0.
Table 4.5 illustrate the convergence of this solution as spatial resolution is rened.
n = 32 n = 320 n = 3200
t u(1/4, t) k = 10
2
k = 10
3
k = 10
4
0.01 0.67382545 0.67030550 0.67379098 0.67382511
0.02 0.45404074 0.44930947 0.45399428 0.45404027
0.03 0.30594421 0.30117461 0.30589725 0.30594374
0.04 0.20615299 0.20187900 0.20611081 0.20615257
0.05 0.13891113 0.13532060 0.13887560 0.13891078
0.06 0.09360186 0.09070614 0.09357313 0.09360157
0.09 0.02863695 0.02731839 0.02862376 0.02863681
0.12 0.00876131 0.00822760 0.00875593 0.00876125
0.15 0.00268047 0.00247795 0.00267842 0.00268045
Table 4.5:
Calculations illustrating
the convergence of the
Crank Nicolson algorithm
for various combinations of
parameters.
4.1.5 Summary
Several numerical schemes have been examined with varying degrees of success. The performance of
each scheme is now summarised.
Euler Converges if k is suciently small but otherwise will blow-up.
Richardson Seems to be unstable for all choices of the Courant number r.
Dufort-Frankel Converges but not necessarily to the correct solution!
Crank-Nicolson Seems to exhibit stable behaviour for all choices of the Courant
number and converges to the correct solution as spatial resolu-
tion is improved.
4.2 Numerical consistency
The properties required by a numerical scheme to enable it to solve a partial dierential equation
can be summarised in terms of the consistency, stability and convergence of the scheme.
A scheme is said to be consistent if it solves the problem it purports to solve. In the context of
the diusion equation, the numerical scheme must be consistent with the partial dierential equation
u
t
= u
xx
. It would appear, for example, that the Dufort-Frankel algorithm is not consistent.
A numerical algorithm is said to be stable provided small errors in arithmetic remain bounded. For
example, particular combinations of temporal and spatial discretisation may cause the scheme to
blow up as happens with the Euler scheme. It would appear that there are no combinations of h and
k for which the Richardson scheme is stable. On the other hand, calculation would suggest that the
Crank-Nicolson scheme is stable for all combinations of temporal and spatial discretisation.
A scheme converges if it is both consistent and stable as temporal and spatial discretisation is
reduced.
4.2.1 Consistency
The Dufort-Frankel and Crank-Nicolson algorithms are examined for consistency. In both cases, the
analysis takes advantage of the Taylor series expansions
u
i,j+1
= u
i,j
+k
u
i,j
t
+
k
2
2
2
u
i,j
t
2
+O(k
3
)
u
i,j1
= u
i,j
k
u
i,j
t
+
k
2
2
2
u
i,j
t
2
+O(k
3
)
u
i+1,j
= u
i,j
+h
u
i,j
x
+
h
2
2
2
u
i,j
x
2
+
h
3
6
3
u
i,j
x
3
+O(h
4
)
u
i1,j
= u
i,j
h
u
i,j
x
+
h
2
2
2
u
i,j
x
2

h
3
6
3
u
i,j
x
3
+O(h
4
) .
4.2. NUMERICAL CONSISTENCY 65
Dufort-Frankel
The Dufort-Frankel algorithm is
u
i,j+1
u
i,j1
2k
=
u
i+1,j
u
i,j+1
u
i,j1
+u
i1,j
h
2
.
Each term is now replaced from its Taylor series to obtain after some algebra
u
i,j
t

2
u
i,j
x
2
=
_
k
h
_
2
2
u
i,j
t
2
+O(h
2
) +O(k
2
) +O(k
3
/h
2
) .
Any implementation of the Dufort-Frankel algorithm in which h and k individual tend to zero with
k/h = c, a constant, will solve u
t
= u
xx
c
2
u
tt
. Consequently the Dufort-Frankel algorithm is not
consistent.
Crank-Nicolson
The Crank-Nicolson algorithm is
u
i,j+1
u
i,j
k
=
1
2h
2
_
u
i+1,j+1
+u
i+1,j
2(u
i,j+1
+u
i,j
) +u
i1,j+1
+u
i1,j
_
.
As with the Dufort-Frankel algorithm, each term is now replaced from its Taylor series. The algebra
is more complicated and so we list the individual components as follows:-
u
i,j+1
u
i,j
k
=
u
i,j
t
+
k
2
2
u
i,j
t
2
+O(k
2
)
u
i+1,j+1
2u
i,j+1
+u
i1,j+1
= h
2

2
u
i,j+1
x
2
+O(h
4
)
u
i+1,j
2u
i,j
+u
i1,j
= h
2

2
u
i,j
x
2
+O(h
4
) .
When these components are inserted into the Crank-Nicolson algorithm, the result is
u
i,j
t
+
k
2
2
u
i,j
t
2
+O(k
2
) =
1
2h
2
_
h
2

2
u
i,j+1
x
2
+h
2

2
u
i,j
x
2
+O(h
4
)
_
which in turn simplies to
u
i,j
t
+
k
2
2
u
i,j
t
2
+O(k
2
) =
1
2
_
2
2
u
i,j
x
2
+k
3
u
i,j
x
2
t
+O(k
2
) +O(h
2
)
_
.
It is now straight forward algebra to observe that this equation can be rewritten in the form
u
i,j
t

2
u
i,j
x
2
=
k
2
_

3
u
i,j
x
2
t

2
u
i,j
t
2
_
+O(k
2
) +O(h
2
) .
Thus the Crank-Nicolson algorithm is consistent as h and k tend to zero.
4.3 Numerical stability
Two methods, one including the eect of boundary conditions and the other excluding the eect
of boundary conditions, are used to investigate stability. Both methods are attributed to John von
Neumann. The approach which excludes the eect of boundary conditions is usually called the
Fourier method while that which includes the eect of boundary conditions is usually called the
matrix method. In practice, it is normally assumed that the boundary conditions have a negligible
impact on the stability of the numerical procedure.
4.3.1 Fourier method
The primary observation in the Fourier method is that the numerical scheme is linear and therefore
it will have solutions in the form u
p,q
=
q
e
iph
. The numerical scheme is stable provided || < 1
and unstable whenever || > 1.
Euler method
The Euler method uses the numerical scheme
u
p,q+1
= u
p,q
+r(u
p1,q
2u
p,q
+u
p+1,q
)
and therefore
q+1
e
iph
=
q
e
iph
+r
_
q
e
i(p1)h
2
q
e
iph
+
q
e
i(p+1)h
_
.
This equation simplies immediately to
= 1 +r
_
e
ih
2 +e
ih
_
= 1 + 2r
_
cos h 1
_
= 1 4r sin
2
h/2 .
Clearly is real-valued and satises < 1. Therefore Eulers method is stable provided > 1
which in turn requires that
1 4r sin
2
h/2 > 1
1
2 sin
2
h/2
> r
for all choices of . This condition can be satised only provided r < 1/2, and therefore the numerical
stability of the Euler method requires that r < 1/2.
Richardson method
The Richardson method uses the numerical scheme
u
p,q+1
= u
p,q1
+ 2r(u
p+1,q
2u
p,q
+u
p1,q
)
4.3. NUMERICAL STABILITY 67
and therefore
q+1
e
iph
=
q1
e
iph
+ 2r
_
q
e
i(p+1)h
2
q
e
iph
+
q
e
i(p1)h
_
.
=
1
+ 2r
_
e
ih
2 +e
ih
_
=
1
+ 4r
_
cos h 1
_
=
1
8r sin
2
h/2 .
In conclusion, is the solution of the quadratic equation
2
+ 8r sin
2
h/2 1 = 0
with solutions
= 4r sin
2
h/2
_
1 + 16r
2
sin
4
h/2 .
Clearly both solutions are real but one solution satises || > 1. Therefore Richardsons method
is never stable (as was observed in the numerical example). The oscillatory nature of blow-up in
Richardsons algorithm is due to the fact that instability ensues through a negative value of .
Dufort-Frankel method
The Dufort-Frankel method uses the numerical scheme
u
p,q+1
= u
p,q1
+ 2r(u
p+1,q
u
p,q+1
u
p,q1
+u
p1,q
)
and therefore
q+1
e
iph
=
q1
e
iph
+ 2r
_
q
e
i(p+1)h
q+1
e
iph
q1
e
iph
+
q
e
i(p1)h
_
.
=
1
+ 2r( e
ih

1
+e
ih
) = 2r + (1 2r)
1
+ 4r cos(h) .
In conclusion, is the solution of the quadratic equation
(1 + 2r)
2
4r cos h (1 2r) = 0
with solutions
=
2r cos h
_
1 4r
2
sin
2
h
1 + 2r
.
The roots of this quadratic are either both real or form a complex conjugate pair. If the roots are
real, the triangle inequality gives
|| =
2r cos h
_
1 4r
2
sin
2
h
1 + 2r

| 2r cos h| +
_
1 4r
2
sin
2
h
1 + 2r

2r + 1
1 + 2r
= 1 .
On the other hand, if the roots are complex then 2r > 1 and
||
2
=
4r
2
cos
2
h + 4r
2
sin
2
h 1
(1 + 2r)
2
=
4r
2
1
(1 + 2r)
2

2r 1
2r + 1
1 .
Either way, the Dufort-Frankel scheme is stable. This means that it will not blow-up due to the
presence of rounding error, although it has already been shown to be inconsistent. It is now clear
why this scheme converges, but not necessarily to the desired solution.
Crank-Nicolson method
The Crank-Nicolson method uses the numerical scheme
u
p,q+1
= u
p,q
+
r
2
_
u
p+1,q+1
+u
p+1,q
2(u
p,q+1
+u
p,q
) +u
p1,q+1
+u
p1,q
_
and therefore
q+1
e
iph
=
q
e
iph
+
r
2
_
q+1
e
i(p+1)h
+
q
e
i(p+1)h
2
_
q+1
e
iph
+
q
e
iph
_
+
q+1
e
i(p1)h
+
q
e
i(p1)h
_
.
= 1 +
r
2
_
e
ih
+e
ih
2( + 1) +e
ih
+e
ih
_
.
Further simplication gives
= 1 +r ( cos h + cos h 1 ) =
1 2r sin
2
h/2
1 + 2r sin
2
h/2
.
Irrespective of the choice of k or h, it is clear that || < 1 and therefore the Crank-Nicolson scheme
is stable. This means that it will not blow-up due to the presence of rounding error.
4.3.2 Matrix method
The matrix method relies on Gershgorins circle theorem regarding the location of matrix eigenvalues.
The theorem asserts that if A is an n n matrix and C
1
, C
n
are the circles dened by
C
k
= {X : |X A
kk
|
n
j=1 j=k
|A
kj
| }
then all the eigenvalues of A are contained within the region D = C
1
UC
2
. . . UC
n
. In particular, if m
(m n) of these circles form a subspace of D which does not intersect the remaining (nm) circles,
then precisely m eigenvalues are contained within such a subregion.
Example
Use Gerschgorins theorem to locate the eigenvalues of the matrix.
A =
_
_
9 1 1
0 1 1
2 4 0
_
_
Solution
The Gershgorin circles are
C
1
= {Z C : |Z 9| = 2} , C
2
= {Z C : |Z 1| = 1} , C
3
= {Z C : |Z| = 6} .
Thus one eigenvalue lies in |Z 9| = 2 and two eigenvalues lie in |Z| = 6.
Euler method
The Euler method is the algorithm
u
p,q+1
= u
p,q
+r(u
p+1,q
2u
p,q
+u
p1,q
) = (1 2r)u
p,q
+ru
p+1,q
+ru
p1,q
where the values of u
0,q
and u
n,q
are given by the boundary conditions in the Dirichlet problem. The
aim of the algorithm is to compute u
1,q
, , u
n1,q
for all values of q. Let U
(q)
= (u
1,q
, , u
n1,q
)
T
then Eulers algorithm corresponds to the matrix operation
U
(q+1)
= TU
(q)
+r F
(q)
(4.1)
where the (n 1) (n 1) tri-diagonal matrix T and the (n 1) dimensional vector F
(q)
are
T =
_
_
1 2r r 0 0 0
r 1 2r r 0 0
0 r 1 2r r 0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

0 0 r 1 2r
_
_
, F
(q)
=
_
_
u
0,q
0
.
.
.
0
u
n,q
_
_
.
Thus U
(1)
= TU
(0)
+rF
(0)
and
U
(2)
= TU
(1)
+rF
(1)
= T(TU
(0)
+rF
(0)
) +rF
(1)
= T
2
U
(0)
+rTF
(0)
+rF
(1)
.
These calculations suggest that equation (4.1) has general solution
U
(q+1)
= T
q+1
U
(0)
+r
q
j=0
T
j
F
(qj)
.
This result can be established by induction. Assuming that the boundary conditions are bounded
functions of time, then the solution U
(q+1)
remains bound only provided T
q+1
U
(0)
does not blow
up. Since T is symmetric it has a complete set of (real) eigenvalues
1
, ,
n1
with corresponding
normalised eigenvectors E
1
, , E
n1
. Let U
(0)
= c
1
E
1
+ +c
n1
E
n1
then
T
q+1
U
(0)
=
n1
j=1
c
j
q+1
j
E
j
,
which will remain bounded as t only provided each eigenvalue of T lies within the unit circle.
On the unit circle is not good enough in the presence of non-zero boundary information. Gershgorins
circle theorem asserts that all the eigenvalues of T (which are known to be real) lie within the region
D = {z C : |z (1 2r)| = r} {z C : |z (1 2r)| = 2r} = {z C : |z (1 2r)| = 2r} .
This is a circle centre (1 2r, 0) and radius 2r. The extremities of the circle on the x-axis are
the points (1 4r, 0) and (1, 0). Stability is therefore guaranteed in the Euler algorithm provided
1 4r > 1, that is, r < 1/2.
4.3.3 Gradient boundary conditions
Consider now the diusion equation
u
t
= u
xx
, (t, x) (0, ) (0, 1)
with initial condition u(x, 0) = f(x) and the gradient conditions u
x
(0, t) = u
x
(1, t) = 0. As previously,
u
t
is replaced by its forward dierence approximation and u
xx
is replaced by its central dierence
approximation to obtain
u
i,j+1
= u
i,j
+r (u
i+1,j
2u
i,j
+u
i1,j
) +O(k
2
, kh
2
) , i = 1, , (n 1)
in which r is the Courant number. The boundary conditions when expressed in terms of for-
ward/backward dierences of u give
3u
0,j
+ 4u
1,j
u
2,j
2h
= O(h
2
) ,
3u
n,j
4u
n1,j
+u
n2,j
2h
= O(h
2
) .
The values of the solution at time j +1 can be computed from the solution at time j using the results
u
1,j+1
= (1 2r)u
1,j
+ru
2,j
+ru
0,j
+O(kh
2
, k
2
)
u
2,j+1
= (1 2r)u
2,j
+ru
3,j
+ru
1,j
+O(kh
2
, k
2
)
u
n1,j+1
= (1 2r)u
n1,j
+ru
n,j
+ru
n2,j
+O(kh
2
, k
2
)
u
n2,j+1
= (1 2r)u
n2,j
+ru
n1,j
+ru
n3,j
+O(kh
2
, k
2
)
These results are now used to compute u
0,j+1
and u
n,j+1
as follows:-
u
0,j+1
=
1
3
_
4u
1,j+1
u
2,j+1
_
+O(h
3
)
=
1
3
_
(4 9r)u
1,j
+ (6r 1)u
2,j
+ 4ru
0,j
ru
3,j
_
+O(kh
2
, k
2
, h
3
)
u
n,j+1
=
1
3
_
4u
n1,j+1
u
n2,j+1
_
+O(h
3
)
=
1
3
_
(4 9r)u
n1,j
+ 4ru
n,j
+ (6r 1)u
n2,j
ru
n3,j
_
+O(kh
2
, k
2
, h
3
)
Now let U
(j)
= (u
0,j
, , u
n,j
)
T
then the Euler scheme for the determination of the solution becomes
U
(j+1)
= AU
(j)
where A is the (n + 1) (n + 1) matrix
_
_
4r
3
4 9r
3
6r 1
3

r
3
0 0
r 1 2r r 0 0
0 r 1 2r r 0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
b
0
r
3
6r 1
3
4 9r
3
4r
3
_
_
Clearly A is neither symmetric or tri-diagonal. Nevertheless Gershgorins circle theorem indicates
that all the eigenvalues of A are located within the region
D = {z C : |z (1 2r)| = 2r} {z C : |3z 4r| = r +|4 9r| +|6r 1| } .
As previously, the circle centre (1-2r,0) lies within the unit circle provided r < 1/2. However the
analysis of the second circle requires the treatment of several cases. The boundary values are r = 4/9
and r = 1/6.
Case 1 Suppose 0 < r < 1/6 then 0 < 9r < 3/2 < 4. The second circle is
|3z 4r| = r + 4 9r + 1 6r = 5 14r |3z 4r| = 5 14r .
The line segment of the x-axis lying within this circle is 5 + 14r 3x 4r 5 14r, which
becomes after simplication 5/3 + 6r x 5/3 10r/3. This line segment lies within the unit
circle provided 5/3 10r/3 < 1 and 1 < 5/3 + 6r, that is, provided 1/5 < r and 1/9 < r. But
r < 1/6 by assumption and so these conditions cannot be satised.
Case 2 When 1/6 < r < 4/9, the second circle has equation
|3z 4r| = r + 4 9r + 6r 1 = 3 2r |3z 4r| = 3 2r .
The line segment of the x-axis lying within this circle is 3 +2r 3x 4r 3 2r, which becomes
after simplication 1 + 2r x 1 + 2r/3. Clearly 1 + 2r/3 > 1 for r > 0 and so this line segment
never lies within the unit circle.
Case 3 When 4/9 < r < 1/2, the second circle has equation
|3z 4r| = r + 9r 4 + 6r 1 = 16r 5 |3z 4r| = 16r 5 .
The line segment of the x-axis lying within this circle is 16r +5 3x4r 16r 5, which becomes
after simplication 5/34r x 20r/35/3. This line segment lies within the unit circle provided
20r/3 5/3 < 1 and 1 < 5/3 4r, that is, provided r < 2/5 and r < 2/3. But r > 4/9 and so
again these conditions cannot be satised.
In conclusion, Gershgorins theorem on this occasion provides no useful information regarding the
stability of the algorithm. In fact, the issue of stability is of secondary importance in this problem
to the issue of accuracy. The detailed analysis of the error structure in this Neumann problem
indicates that the numerical scheme no longer has the expected O(kh
2
, k
2
) accuracy of the Dirichlet
problem. The error at each iteration is dominated by O(h
3
) which behaves like O(kh) assuming that
k = rh
2
= O(1). the treatment of the Neumann boundary value problem for the diusion equation
is non-trivial and is not pursued further here.
4.4 Numerical convergence - The Lax equivalence theorem
Given a properly posed linear initial boundary value problem and a linear nite dierence approxi-
mation to it that is consistent and stable, then the scheme is convergent.
The problem is properly posed if
(i) The solution is unique when it exists;
(ii) The solution depends continuously on the initial data;
(iii) A solution always exists for initial data arbitrarily close to initial data for which a solution does
not exist.
Example Let e
i,j
= u
i,j
u(x
i
, t
j
) where u(x, t) is the exact solution at (x, t). Eulers algorithm
u
i,j+1
= u
i,j
+r(u
i+1,j
2u
i,j
+u
i1,j
)
can be re-expressed in the form
u
i,j+1
+e
i,j+1
= u
i,j
+e
i,j
+r( u
i+1,j
2 u
i,j
+ u
i1,j
) +r(e
i+1,j
2e
i,j
+e
i1,j
) .
Taylors theorem may now be use to assert that
u
i,j+1
= u +k u
t
+
k
2
2
u
tt
+O(k
3
)
u
i+1,j
= u +h u
x
+
h
2
2
u
xx
+
h
3
6
u
xxx
+
h
4
24
u
xxxx
+O(h
5
)
u
i1,j
= u h u
x
+
h
2
2
u
xx
h
3
6
u
xxx
+
h
4
24
u
xxxx
+O(h
5
)
where u = u(x, t). These formulae are now inserted into the numerical scheme to obtain
k u
t
+
k
2
2
u
tt
+O(k
3
) +e
i,j+1
= e
i,j
+r
_
h
2
u
xx
+
h
4
12
u
xxxx
+O(h
6
)
_
+r(e
i+1,j
2e
i,j
+e
i1,j
) .
4.4. NUMERICAL CONVERGENCE - THE LAX EQUIVALENCE THEOREM 73
after all elementary simplications have been done. The courant number in the second term on the
right hand side of this equation is now replaced by its denition to get
e
i,j+1
= (1 2r)e
i,j
+k ( u
xx
u
t
) +
kh
2
12
u
xxxx
k
2
2
u
tt
+O(k
3
, kh
4
)
+r e
i+1,j
+r e
i1,j
.
Since u satises u
t
= u
xx
then it also follows that u
tt
= u
xxxx
. With these further simplications, it
is clear that
e
i,j+1
= (1 2r)e
i,j
+
kh
2
12
(1 6r) u
tt
+r e
i+1,j
+r e
i1,j
+O(k
3
, kh
4
) .
Now dene E
j
to be the maximum spatial discretisation error at time t
j
and let M be the maximum
value of u
tt
across space and time then the triangle inequality yields initially
| e
i,j+1
| | 1 2r | | e
i,j
| +
kh
2
12
|1 6r | M +r | e
i+1,j
| +r | e
i1,j
| +O(k
3
, kh
4
) ,
which in turn indicates that E
j
satises
E
j+1
(2r +| 1 2r | ) E
j
+
kh
2
12
|1 6r | M +O(k
3
, kh
4
) .
Assuming that r 1/2, then | 1 2r | = 1 2r and it now obvious that
E
j+1
E
j
+
kh
2
12
|1 6r | M +O(k
3
, kh
4
)
with solution
E
j
E
0
+
jkh
2
12
|1 6r | M +jkO(k
2
, h
3
) .
Since jk = T, the current time interval covered by the calculation, it follows immediately that
E(T) E(0) +T
_
Mh
2
|1 6r |
12
+O(k
2
, h
4
)
_
.
Thus provided r < 1/2 then the maximum spatial discretisation error in the Euler scheme grows in
direct proportion to T. In particular, the Euler scheme is O(k) more accurate than might otherwise
have been anticipated when r = 1/6.
Exercises
Question 27.
The equation u
t
= u
xx
is approximated at the point (ih, jk) by
_
u
i,j+1
u
i,j1
2k
_
+ (1 )
_
u
i,j
u
i,j1
k
_
_
u
i+1,j
2u
i,j
+u
i1,j
h
2
_
= 0,
Show that the truncation error is given by
k(1 )
2
2
u
t
2

h
2
12
4
u
x
4
+O(k
2
, h
4
).
What is the optimal value for ?
Question 28.
The function u(x, t) satises the equation
u
t
= u
xx
, (x, t) (0, 1) (0, )
with initial condition u(x, 0) = sinx and boundary conditions u(0, t) = u(1, t) = 0 for t > 0.
Write out the discretised scheme using the explicit Euler method with a step length h = 1/4 and a
time step k = 0.05. Use the symmetry of the problem to reduce the number of unknowns. Solve the
equations to nd an approximate value for u(1/2, 0.1). [You could compare your numerical solution
with the exact one obtained via separation of variables].
Question 29.
Derive the Crank-Nicolson equations for the previous problem. Use these with h = 1/4, k = 0.1 to
estimate the value of u(1/2, 0.1) [exact answer 0.3727]. Also, with h = 1/4 and k = 0.025 estimate
u(0.5, 0.05).
Question 30.
u
t
= xu
xx
, (x, t) (0, 1/2) (0, )
with initial condition u(x, 0) = x(1 x) and boundary conditions u(0, t) = 0 and u(1/2, t)/x =
u(1/2, t)/2.
Write out the discretised scheme using the explicit Euler method with a step length h = 0.1 and a
time step k = 0.005 using the ctitious point approach to the derivative boundary condition. [No
need to solve.] What will happen around (1/2, 0)? Why?
4.4. NUMERICAL CONVERGENCE - THE LAX EQUIVALENCE THEOREM 75
Question 31.
Use Gershgorin Circles to prove that the Euler method used in the previous question with a general
(N + 1)-node mesh will not grow exponentially provided the Courant number r satises
r
4
4 +h
.
Question 32.
The equation u
t
+u
x
f(x, t) = 0 in which is a constant is approximated at the point (ih, jk) by
2k
_
2u
i,j+1
(u
i+1,j
+u
i1,j
)
_
+
(u
i+1,j
u
i1,j
)
2h
f
i,j
= 0.
Investigate the consistency of this method for r = k/h and for r = k/h
2
. If either is inconsistent,
what equation does the method solve?
Question 33.
The equation u
t
= u
xx
with (x, t) (0, 1)(0, ) is approximated at the point (ih, jk) by the scheme
u
i,j+1
u
i,j
= r
_
(u
i1,j+1
2u
i,j+1
+u
i+1,j+1
) + (1 )(u
i1,j
2u
i,j
+u
i+1,j
)
_
where [0, 1], r = k/h
2
is the Courant number and h = 1/N. Assuming that the boundary
conditions and initial conditions are known, investigate the Fourier stability of this method.
Question 34.
Show that the n n tri-diagonal matrix
_
_
a b 0 0 0
c a b 0 0
0 c a b 0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
b
0 0 c a
_
_
has eigenvalues
k
= a + 2
bc cos
k
, k = 1, , n
with corresponding eigenvector
X
k
=
__
c
b
_
1/2
sin
k
,
_
c
b
_
sin 2
k
, ,
_
c
b
_
j/2
sin j
k
, ,
_
c
b
_
n/2
sin n
k
]
T
.
where
k
= k/(n + 1).
Question 35.
Let be a constant. The equation u
t
= u
xx
is to be solved in the region (x, t) (0, 1) (0, ) with
boundary conditions u(0, t) = u(1, t) = 0. The solution is approximated at the point (ih, jk) by the
fully implicit backward Euler scheme
u
i,j+1
u
i,j
= r(u
i1,j+1
2u
i,j+1
+u
i+1,j+1
),
where r = k/h
2
and h = 1/N. Assuming that the initial conditions are known, investigate the
stability of this method using both the matrix and Fourier methods.
[Recall that the eigenvalues of a constant n n tri-diagonal matrix are
i
= a + 2
bc cos
i
n + 1
where a is the diagonal entry, b, and c are the sub- and super=diagonal entries.]
Question 36.
Show that the Euler and Richardson methods are both consistent with the original equation u
t
= u
xx
.
So their diculties are entirely due to their instabilities.
Chapter 5
Parabolic equations in two dimensions
5.1 Introduction
The canonical parabolic equation in two dimensions is
u
t
= u
xx
+u
yy
, (x, y) D t (0, )
with initial condition u(x, y, 0) = u
0
(x, y) and boundary conditions at along D which may be either
Dirichlet (i.e. u), Neumann (i.e. u/n) or Robin (i.e. u/n +u = 0). As with elliptic equations
in two dimensions, it will be assumed a priori that the spatial discretisation on the x and y directions
is h. The nite dierence formulation of u
t
= u
xx
+u
yy
is
du
i,j
dt
=
1
h
2
_ _
u
i+1,j
2u
i,j
+u
i1,j
_
+
_
u
i,j+1
2u
i,j
+u
i,j1
__
The Crank-Nicholson re-formulation of this equation is obtained by integrating the equation over
[t
q
, t
q+1
] and approximating each integral on the right hand side by the trapezoidal rule to obtain
u
q+1
i,j
= u
q
i,j
+
r
2
_ _
u
q+1
i+1,j
2u
q+1
i,j
+u
q+1
i1,j
_
+
_
u
q+1
i,j+1
2u
q+1
i,j
+u
q+1
i,j1
_
+
_
u
q
i+1,j
2u
q
i,j
+u
q
i1,j
_
+
_
u
q
i,j+1
2u
q
i,j
+u
q
i,j1
__
which is subsequently re-arranged to give
u
q+1
i,j

r
2
_
u
q+1
i+1,j
2u
q+1
i,j
+u
q+1
i1,j
_
r
2
_
u
q+1
i,j+1
2u
q+1
i,j
+u
q+1
i,j1
_
= u
q
i,j
+
r
2
_
u
q
i+1,j
2u
q
i,j
+u
q
i1,j
_
+
r
2
_
u
q
i,j+1
2u
q
i,j
+u
q
i,j1
_
.
As with the Crank-Nicolson formulation of the one dimensional problem, it may be demonstrated
that this scheme is consistent. However, the matrix of the system is no longer tri-diagonal and so
an iterative procedure is required to advance the solution through each time step. To simplify the
representation of the scheme, the nite dierence operator is introduce through the denition
(x
p
) = x
p+1/2
x
p1/2
.
77
78 CHAPTER 5. PARABOLIC EQUATIONS IN TWO DIMENSIONS
Thus
2
(x
p
) = (x
p+1/2
x
p1/2
) = (x
p+1
x
p
) (x
p
x
p1
) = x
p+1
2x
p
+x
p1
.
With this denition, the Crank-Nicolson scheme becomes
u
q+1
i,j

r
2

2
x
( u
q+1
i,j
)
r
2

2
y
( u
q+1
i,j
) = u
q
i,j
+
r
2

2
x
( u
q
i,j
) +
r
2

2
y
( u
q
i,j
) .
5.2 Alternating Direction Implicit
The construction of the alternating direction implicit (ADI) scheme begins with the nite dierence
scheme
u
q+1
i,j
u
q
i,j
= r
_
2
x
( u
q
i,j
) +
2
y
(u
q
i,j
)
_
in which the time derivative in the original equation has been replaced by its forward dierence. A
further time step gives
u
q+2
i,j
u
q+1
i,j
= r
_
2
x
( u
q+1
i,j
) +
2
y
(u
q+1
i,j
)
_
.
The term
2
x
( u
q
i,j
) in the rst of these equations is replaced by
2
x
( u
q+1
i,j
) and the term
2
y
( u
q+1
i,j
) in
the second of these equations is replaced by
2
y
( u
q+2
i,j
). This procedure gives the two-step algorithm
u
q+1
i,j
r
2
x
( u
q+1
i,j
) = u
q
i,j
+r
2
y
(u
q
i,j
)
u
q+2
i,j
r
2
y
( u
q+2
i,j
) = u
q+1
i,j
+r
2
x
(u
q+1
i,j
) .
By this methodology,
2
y
(u
q
i,j
) is explicit and u
q+1
i,j
is determined implicitly. The roles are reversed
in the second equation. Here
2
x
(u
q+1
i,j
) is explicit and u
q+2
i,j
is determined implicitly. This is why
origin of the alternating direction description of the algorithm. The important property of the ADI
algorithm is that both steps only require the solution of tri-diagonal systems of linear equations, the
rst to nd u
q+1
i,j
and the second to nd u
q+2
i,j
.
5.2.1 Consistency of ADI
For representational convenience, the subscripts are dropped from u. The ADI algorithm is
(1 r
2
x
)u
q+1
= (1 +r
2
y
)u
q
(1 r
2
y
)u
q+2
= (1 +r
2
x
)u
q+1
which becomes on elimination of the terms at t
q+1
(1 r
2
x
)(1 r
2
y
)u
q+2
= (1 +r
2
x
)(1 +r
2
y
)u
q
.
It is now straight forward algebra to verify that
(1 +r
2
2
x
2
y
)(u
q+2
u
q
) = r (
2
x
+
2
y
)(u
q+2
+u
q
) .
5.2. ALTERNATING DIRECTION IMPLICIT 79
This equation is now divided by 2k and r replaced by its denition to obtain
(1 +r
2
2
x
2
y
)
u
q+2
u
q
2k
= (
2
x
+
2
y
)
u
q+2
+u
q
2h
2
.
Each term appearing in this equation is now replaced by its Taylor series expansion taken about
(x
i
, y
j
) at time t
q+1
. It is easy to see that (u
q+2
u
q
)/2k is the central dierence formula for u
t
at
time t
q+1
and therefore
u
q+2
u
q
2k
= u
q+1
t
+O(k
2
) , u
q+2
+u
q
= 2u
q+1
+O(k
2
) .
Consequently,
(
2
x
+
2
y
)
u
q+2
+u
q
2h
2
=
(
2
x
+
2
y
)2u
q+1
t
2h
2
+O(k
2
) = u
q+1
xx
+u
q+1
yy
+O(k
2
, h
2
) .
Finally,
r
2
2
x
2
y
(u
q+2
u
q
)
2k
=
k
2
h
4

2
x
2
y
(u
q+1
t
) +O(k
2
) = k
2
u
q+1
txxyy
+O(k
2
, h
2
) .
The component parts are now assembled to give
u
q+1
t
+O(k
2
) +k
2
u
q+1
txxyy
+O(r
2
k
2
) = u
q+1
xx
+u
q+1
yy
+O(k
2
, h
2
)
which may be rearranged to give
u
q+1
t
u
q+1
xx
u
q+1
yy
= O(k
2
, h
2
) .
Consequently the ADI algorithm is unconditionally consistent.
5.2.2 Stability of the ADI algorithm
The stability of the ADI algorithm is investigated by the substitution
u
n
p,q
=
n
e
i(p+q)h
.
The calculation is based on the auxiliary observation that
2
x
u = (e
ih
2 +e
ih
) u = 2(cos h 1) u = 4(sin
2
h/2) u,
2
y
u = (e
ih
2 +e
ih
) u = 2(cos h 1) u = 4(sin
2
h/2) u.
These formulae are now substituted into the numerical scheme
(1 r
2
x
)(1 r
2
y
)u
q+2
= (1 +r
2
x
)(1 +r
2
y
)u
q
.
to obtain
2
=
(1 4r sin
2
(h/2) )(1 4r sin
2
(h/2) )
(1 + 4r sin
2
(h/2) )(1 + 4r sin
2
(h/2) )
.
The triangle inequality applied to the expression for
2
yields immediately that ||
2
< 1, and so the
ADI algorithm is unconditionally stable for all choices of r.
80 CHAPTER 5. PARABOLIC EQUATIONS IN TWO DIMENSIONS
Exercises
Question 37.
Show that the 2-D ADI method
(1 r
2
x
) u
n+1
= (1 +r
2
y
) u
n
,
(1 r
2
y
)u
n+1
= u
n+1
r
2
y
u
n
is unconditionally stable. [Start by eliminating u
n+1
.]
Question 38.
Show that the 3-D ADI method
(1 r
2
x
)u
n+1
= (1 +r
2
y
+r
2
z
)u
n
,
(1 r
2
y
)u
n+2
= (1 +r
2
x
+r
2
z
)u
n+1
,
(1 r
2
z
)u
n+3
= (1 +r
2
x
+r
2
y
)u
n+2
is stable provided that r 1/2. [Start by eliminating u
n+1
and u
n+2
.]
Question 39.
u
t
= u
xx
+f(x, t) , (x, t) (0, 1) (0, )
with given initial condition and boundary conditions
u(0, t) = 0 ,
u(1, t)
x
= g(t) .
Show by careful analysis of truncation error that the gradient boundary condition derived by the
ctitious nodes procedure usually gives rise to a system of nite dierence equations that are O(h)
accurate.
Show that O(h
3
) accuracy is recovered provided
dg
dt
=
f(x
n
, t)
x
.
Chapter 6
NSPDE solutions
Solution 1.
(a) Dene g(h) = 2hf
(x) f(x +h) +f(x h) then clearly g(0) = 0. Three dierentiations with
respect to h give
dg
dh
= 2f
(x) f
(x +h) f
(x h)
d
2
g
dh
2
= f
(x +h) +f
(x h)
d
3
g
dh
3
= f
(x +h) f
(x h) .
Since g
(0) = g
(0) = 0, then Maclaurins theorem applied to g(h) gives

g(h) = g(0) +hg
(0) +
h
2
2
g
(0) +
h
3
6
g
(h) =
h
3
6
g
(h) , (0, 1) .
Given any continuous function y(x), the task is now to show that the equation q() = y(x +
h) + y(x h) 2y(x + h) has a solution in the interval [1, 1]. To establish this result, it is
enough to observe that q(1) = y(x + h) y(x h) and q(1) = y(x h) y(x + h). Clearly
q(1) + q(1) = 0 and therefore q() has at least one zero in [1, 1]. Consequently there exist
such that
d
3
g
dh
3
= f
(x +h) f
(x h) = 2f
() , [x h, x +h]
and the result is proves by asserting that
g(h) = 2hf
(x) f(x +h) +f(x h) =

h
3
3
f
() .
which in turn simplies to the answer
f
(x) =
f(x +h) f(x h)
2h

h
2
6
f
() .
81
82 CHAPTER 6. NSPDE SOLUTIONS
(b) Dene g(h) = h
2
f
(x) f(x+h) +2f(x) f(xh) then clearly g(0) = 0. Four dierentiations

with respect to h give
dg
dh
= 2hf
(x) f
(x +h) +f
(x h)
d
2
g
dh
2
= 2f
(x) f
(x +h) f
(x h)
d
3
g
dh
3
= f
(x +h) +f
(x h)
d
4
g
dh
4
= f
(x +h) f
(x h) .
Since g
(0) = g
(0) = g
(0) = 0, then Maclaurins theorem applied to g(h) gives

g(h) = g(0) +hg
(0) +
h
2
2
g
(0) +
h
3
6
g
(0) +
h
4
24
g
(h) =
h
4
24
g
(h) , (0, 1) .
Taking y(x) = f
(x) in part (a), it follows that there exist such that

d
4
g
dh
4
= f
(x +h) f
(x h) = 2f
() , [x h, x +h]
and the result is proved by asserting that
g(h) = h
2
f
(x) f(x +h) + 2f(x) f(x h) =

h
4
12
f
() .
which in turn simplies to the answer
f
(x) =
f(x +h) 2f(x) +f(x h)
h
2

h
2
12
f
() .
Solution 2.
The Taylor series expansion of f(x +h) is
f(x +h) = f(x) +hf
(x) +
h
2
2
f
(x) +
h
3
6
f
(x) +O(h
4
) .
The Taylor series of 4f(x +h) f(x + 2h) 3f(x) is therefore
4
_
f(x) +hf
(x) +
h
2
2
f
(x) +
h
3
6
f
(x) +O(h
4
)
_
_
f(x) + 2hf
(x) +
(2h)
2
2
f
(x) +
(2h)
3
6
f
(x) +O(h
4
)
_
3f(x)
= 4f(x) + 4hf
(x) +
4h
2
2
f
(x) +
4h
3
6
f
(x)
f(x) 2hf
(x)
4h
2
2
f
(x)
8h
3
6
f
(x) 3f(x) +O(h

4
)
= 2hf
(x)
2h
3
3
f
(x) +O(h
4
) .
83
It now follows by straight forward algebra that
f
(x) =
4f(x +h) f(x + 2h) 3f(x)
2h
+
h
2
3
f
(x) +O(h
4
)
=
4f(x +h) f(x + 2h) 3f(x)
2h
+O(h
2
) .
This is the forward dierence formula for f
(x). A backward dierence formula can be obtained by

replacing h by h to obtain
f
(x) =
4f(x h) f(x 2h) 3f(x)
2h
+
h
2
3
f
(x) +O(h
4
)
=
f(x 2h) 4f(x h) + 3f(x)
2h
+O(h
2
) .
Solution 3.
These results can be established directly using Taylor series in an ecient way by recognising that
the nite dierence expressions involve very specic combinations of function values. Dene
(x, h) = u(x +h) u(x h) , (x, h) = u(x +h) +u(x h) .
then Taylors theorem gives immediately that
(x, h) = 2hu
(1)
(x) +
h
3
3
u
(3)
(x) +
h
5
60
u
(5)
(x) +O(h
7
)
(x, h) = 2u(x) +h
2
u
(2)
(x) +
h
4
12
u
(4)
(x) +O(h
6
) .
(a) It now follows by straight forward algebra that
u(x + 2h) 2u(x +h) + 2u(x h) u(x 2h) = (x, 2h) 2(x, h)
=
_
4hu
(1)
(x) +
8h
3
3
u
(3)
(x)
_
2
_
2hu
(1)
(x) +
h
3
3
u
(3)
(x)
_
+O(h
5
)
= 2h
3
u
(3)
(x) +O(h
5
) .
This result and the denition of Big O indicate that
u
(3)
(x) =
u(x + 2h) 2u(x +h) + 2u(x h) u(x 2h)
2h
3
+O(h
2
) .
(b) By a similar piece of straight forward algebra gives
u(x + 2h) 4u(x +h) + 6u(x) 4u(x h) +u(x 2h) = (x, 2h) 4(x, h) + 6u(x)
=
_
2u(x) + 4h
2
u
(2)
(x) +
16h
4
12
u
(4)
(x)
_
4
_
2u(x) +h
2
u
(2)
(x) +
h
4
12
u
(4)
(x)
_
+ 6u(x) +O(h
6
)
= h
4
u
(4)
(x) +O(h
6
) .
u
(4)
(x) =
u(x + 2h) 4u(x +h) + 6u(x) 4u(x h) +u(x 2h)
h
4
+O(h
2
) .
Solution 4.
These results are established directly using the Taylor series expansions
(x, h) = u(x +h) u(x h) = 2hu
(1)
(x) +
h
3
3
u
(3)
(x) +
h
5
60
u
(5)
(x) +O(h
7
)
(x, h) = u(x +h) +u(x h) = 2u(x) +h
2
u
(2)
(x) +
h
4
12
u
(4)
(x) +O(h
6
) .
(a) It follows by straight forward algebra that
u(x 2h) + 8u(x h) 8u(x +h) u(x + 2h) = 8(x, h) (x, 2h)
= 8
_
2hu
(1)
(x) +
h
3
3
u
(3)
(x)
_
_
4hu
(1)
(x) +
8h
3
3
u
(3)
(x)
_
+O(h
5
)
= 12hu
(1)
(x) +O(h
5
) .
u
(1)
(x) =
u(x 2h) 8u(x h) + 8u(x +h) u(x + 2h)
12h
+O(h
4
) .
(b) It follows by straight forward algebra that
u(x 2h) + 16u(x h) 30u(x) + 16u(x +h) u(x 2h) = 16(x, h) (x, 2h) 30u(x)
= 16
_
2u(x) +h
2
u
(2)
(x) +
h
4
12
u
(4)
(x)
_
_
2u(x) + 4h
2
u
(2)
(x) +
16h
4
12
u
(4)
(x)
_
30u(x) +O(h
6
)
= 12h
2
u
(2)
(x) +O(h
6
) .
u
(2)
(x) =
u(x 2h) + 16u(x h) 30u(x) + 16u(x +h) u(x + 2h)
12h
2
+O(h
4
) .
These nite dierence formulae are not used for several obvious reasons. First, nodes neighbouring
on a boundary cannot be treated easily even when the value of the solution is prescribed on the
boundary (Dirichlet boundary conditions). Second, the underlying system of equations gives rise to a
penta-diagonal system which is not so easy to solve. Third, the matrix of this penta-diagonal system
of equations is not diagonally dominated. Consequently pivoting may be required.
Solution 5.
The combination of derivatives dened by occurs frequently in problems involving non-uniform
material or geometrical properties. The second order central dierence expression for may be
85
written down using the identity
d
dx
_
a(x)
df
dx
_
=
da
dx
f(x) +a(x)
d
2
f
dx
2
=
1
2
_
d
2
dx
2
_
a(x)f(x)
_
f(x)
d
2
a
dx
2
+a(x)
d
2
f
dx
2
_
.
Consequently,
k
=
1
2
_
a
k+1
f
k+1
2a
k
f
k
+a
k1
f
k1
h
2
f
k
a
k+1
2a
k
+a
k1
h
2
+a
k
f
k+1
2f
k
+f
k1
h
2
_
=
1
2h
2
_
a
k+1
f
k+1
2a
k
f
k
+a
k1
f
k1
f
k
a
k+1
+ 2f
k
a
k
f
k
a
k1
+a
k
f
k+1
2a
k
f
k
+a
k
f
k1
_
=
1
2h
2
_
(a
k+1
+a
k
)f
k+1
(a
k+1
+ 2a
k
+a
k1
)f
k
+ (a
k1
+a
k
)f
k1
_
.
It is obvious from its construction that this nite dierence expression for
k
is second order accurate.
Solution 6.
The Taylor series expansions of f(x h) and f(x +h) are
f(x h) = f(x) hf
(x) +
h
2
2
f
(x) +O(h
3
)
f(x +h) = f(x) +hf
(x) +

2
h
2
2
f
(x) +O(h
3
) .
Subtracting these expressions gives
f(x +h) f(x h) = h(1 +)f
(x) +
h
2
(
2
1)
2
f
(x) +O(h
3
)
which in turn leads to the result
f
(x) =
f(x +h) f(x h)
( + 1)h
+O(h) .
Solution 7.
Unlike the previous example, there is now no need to eliminate f(x) between the equations
f(x h) = f(x) hf
(x) +
h
2
2
f
(x) +O(h
3
)
f(x +h) = f(x) +hf
(x) +

2
h
2
2
f
(x) +O(h
3
)
since its value is known. The idea is to eliminate the term involving f
(x). Thus
f(x +h)
2
f(x h) = (1
2
)f(x) + ( +
2
)hf
(x) +O(h
3
) .
Straight forward algebra now gives
f
(x) =
f(x +h) (1
2
)f(x)
2
f(x h)
(1 +)h
+O(h
2
) .
Solution 8.
The Taylor series expansion of f(x 2h), f(x h) and f(x +h) are
f(x 2h) = f(x) 2hf
(x) + 2h
2
f
(x)
4h
3
3
f
(x) +O(h
4
)
f(x h) = f(x) hf
(x) +
h
2
2
f
(x)
h
3
6
f
(x) +O(h
4
)
f(x +h) = f(x) +hf
(x) +

2
h
2
2
f
(x) +

3
h
3
6
f
(x) +O(h
4
) .
The value of f
(x) is rst eliminated between equations 1 and 2 and between equations 2 and 3 to
obtain
f(x 2h) 2f(x h) = f(x) +h
2
f
(x) h
3
f
(x) +O(h
4
)
6(f(x h) +f(x +h)) = 6(1 +)f(x) + 3( +
2
)h
2
f
(x) + (
3
)h
3
f
(x) +O(h
4
) .
The nal answer is constructed by multiplying the rst of the previous equations by (
3
) and
adding to obtain
(
3
)(f(x 2h) 2f(x h)) + 6(f(x h) +f(x +h)) =
6(1 +)f(x) (
3
)f(x) + 3( +
2
)h
2
f
(x) + (
3
)h
2
f
(x) +O(h
4
)
and this in turn simplies to
(
2
1)f(x 2h) 2(
2
4)f(x h) + 6f(x +h) =
( + 1)(6 +
2
)f(x) + (2 + 3
2
+
3
)h
2
f
(x) +O(h
4
) .
Further simplication gives
(
2
1)f(x 2h) 2(
2
4)f(x h) + 6f(x +h) =
( + 1)(2 +)(3 )f(x) +( + 1)( + 2)h
2
f
(x) +O(h
4
) .
from which it follows by straight forward algebra that
f
(x) =
6f(x +h) + ( 3)( + 1)( + 2)f(x) 2(
2
4)f(x h) +(
2
1)f(x 2h)
( + 1)( + 2)h
2
+O(h
2
) .
87
Solution 9.
(a) There are three products of two basis functions that contribute to integrals over the element
occupying [x
j
, x
j+1
], namely, u
2
j
(x), u
j
(x)u
j+1
(x) and u
2
j+1
(x). Under the change of variable
x = x
j
+ (x
j+1
x
j
) , it is clear that u
j
(x) = (1 ) and u
j+1
(x) = . Consequently,
_
x
j+1
x
j
u
2
j
(x) dx = (x
j+1
x
j
)
_
1
0
(1 )
2
d =
x
j+1
x
j
3
,
_
x
j+1
x
j
u
j
(x)u
j+1
(x) dx = (x
j+1
x
j
)
_
1
0
(1 )d =
x
j+1
x
j
6
,
_
x
j+1
x
j
u
2
j+1
(x) dx = (x
j+1
x
j
)
_
1
0
2
d =
x
j+1
x
j
3
.
Since basis functions interior to a segment span two elements and those at the ends of a segment
span only one element (see, Figure 1.1), it follows immediately that
_
L
0
u
k
(x)u
j
(x) dx =
_
x
j
x
j1
u
k
(x)u
j
(x) dx +
_
x
j+1
x
j
u
k
(x)u
j
(x) dx
where each integral on the right hand side is present only if the underlying element exists.
(b) There are three possible products of two dierentiated basis functions that contribute to inte-
grals over the element occupying [x
j
, x
j+1
], namely,
_
x
j+1
x
j
_
du
j
dx
_
2
dx,
_
x
j+1
x
j
du
j
dx
du
j+1
dx
dx,
_
x
j+1
x
j
_
du
j+1
dx
_
2
dx.
The computation of these integrals is immediate once it is recognised that
du
j
dx
=
1
x
j+1
x
j
,
du
j+1
dx
=
1
x
j+1
x
j
,
The result of these computations is
_
x
j+1
x
j
_
du
j
dx
_
2
dx =
_
x
j+1
x
j
_
du
j+1
dx
_
2
dx =
1
x
j+1
x
j
,
_
x
j+1
x
j
du
j
dx
du
j+1
dx
dx =
1
x
j+1
x
j
.
In the computation of
_
L
0
du
k
(x)
dx
du
j
(x)
dx
dx =
_
x
j
x
j1
u
i
du
k
dx
du
j
dx
dx +
_
x
j+1
x
j
u
i
du
k
dx
du
j
dx
dx
it is again understood that each integral on the right hand side is present only if the underlying
element exists.
(c) There are four possible products of three basis functions that contribute to integrals over the
element occupying [x
j
, x
j+1
], namely, u
3
j
(x), u
2
j
(x)u
j+1
(x), u
j
(x)u
2
j+1
(x) and u
3
j+1
(x). The
change of variable x = x
j
+ (x
j+1
x
j
) now yields.
_
x
j+1
x
j
u
3
j
(x) dx = (x
j+1
x
j
)
_
1
0
(1 )
3
d =
x
j+1
x
j
4
,
_
x
j+1
x
j
u
2
j
(x)u
j+1
(x) dx = (x
j+1
x
j
)
_
1
0
(1 )
2
d =
x
j+1
x
j
12
,
_
x
j+1
x
j
u
j
(x)u
2
j+1
(x) dx = (x
j+1
x
j
)
_
1
0
(1 )
2
d =
x
j+1
x
j
12
,
_
x
j+1
x
j
u
3
j+1
(x) dx = (x
j+1
x
j
)
_
1
0
3
d =
x
j+1
x
j
4
.
Since basis functions interior to a segment span two elements and those at the ends of a segment
span only one element, it again follows immediately that
_
L
0
u
i
(x)u
k
(x)u
j
(x) dx =
_
x
j
x
j1
u
i
(x)u
k
(x)u
j
(x) dx +
_
x
j+1
x
j
u
i
(x)u
k
(x)u
j
(x) dx
where each integral on the right hand side is present only if the underlying element exists.
(d) There are four possible products of one basis function and two dierentiated basis functions
that contribute to integrals over the element occupying [x
j
, x
j+1
], namely,
_
x
j+1
x
j
u
j
_
du
j
dx
_
2
dx,
_
x
j+1
x
j
u
j
du
j
dx
du
j+1
dx
dx,
_
x
j+1
x
j
u
j
_
du
j+1
dx
_
2
dx,
_
x
j+1
x
j
u
j+1
_
du
j
dx
_
2
dx,
_
x
j+1
x
j
u
j+1
du
j
dx
du
j+1
dx
dx,
_
x
j+1
x
j
u
j+1
_
du
j+1
dx
_
2
dx.
The computation of these integrals is immediate once it is recognised that
du
j
dx
=
1
x
j+1
x
j
,
du
j+1
dx
=
1
x
j+1
x
j
,
_
x
j+1
x
j
u
j
(x) dx =
x
j+1
x
j
2
,
_
x
j+1
x
j
u
j+1
(x) dx =
x
j+1
x
j
2
.
The result of these computations is
_
x
j+1
x
j
u
j
_
du
j
dx
_
2
dx =
_
x
j+1
x
j
u
j+1
_
du
j
dx
_
2
dx
_
x
j+1
x
j
u
j
_
du
j+1
dx
_
2
dx =
_
x
j+1
x
j
u
j+1
_
du
j+1
dx
_
2
dx
_
_
=
1
2
1
x
j+1
x
j
,
_
x
j+1
x
j
u
j
du
j
dx
du
j+1
dx
dx =
_
x
j+1
x
j
u
j+1
du
j
dx
du
j+1
dx
dx =
1
2
1
x
j+1
x
j
.
In the computation of
_
L
0
u
i
(x)
du
k
(x)
dx
du
j
(x)
dx
dx =
_
x
j
x
j1
u
i
du
k
dx
du
j
dx
dx +
_
x
j+1
x
j
u
i
du
k
dx
du
j
dx
dx
it is again understood that each integral on the right hand side is present only if the underlying
element exists.
89
Solution 10.
Let x
j
= jL/n and dene f
j
=

f(x
j
) where

f(x) is given by the partial sum
f(x) =
n/21
k=n/2
c
k
e
2ikx/L
, x [0, L] .
The value f
j
is obtained from this summation by replacing x by x
j
to obtain
f
j
=

f(x
j
) =
n/21
k=n/2
c
k
exp
_
2ikjL
nL
_
=
n/21
k=n/2
c
k
e
2ikj/n
.
Since the solution is given a priori, there is no need to solve these equations it is enough to show
that the above expression for f
j
satises
c
k
=
1
n
n1
j=0
f
j
e
2ijk/n
.
With this action in mind, consider
n1
j=0
f
j
e
2ijk/n
=
n1
j=0
_
n/21
m=n/2
c
m
e
2imj/n
_
e
2ijk/n
,
=
n/21
m=n/2
c
m
n1
j=0
e
2imj/n
e
2ijk/n
=
n/21
m=n/2
c
m
n1
j=0
e
2i(mk)j/n
.
Now consider the value of the second summation on the right hand side of this equation. If k = m
then each term in this summation is one and the value of the sum is n. The same comment applies
if k m is a multiple of n, but this is impossible in this particular problem. So if k m = 0 then
n1
j=0
e
2i(mk)j/n
=
1 e
2i(mk)
1 e
2i(mk)/n
= 0
since e
2i(mk)
= 1. In conclusion,
n1
j=0
e
2i(mk)j/n
=
_
_
n k = m
0 k = m
and therefore
n1
j=0
f
j
e
2ijk/n
=
n/21
m=n/2
c
m
n1
j=0
e
2i(mk)j/n
= c
k
.
Solution 11.
The aim is to nd y
1
= y(1/4), y
2
= y(1/2) and y
3
= y(3/4) bearing in mind that y
0
= 0 and y
4
= 1
from the boundary conditions. The central dierence formulae indicate that y
1
, y
2
and y
3
are the
solutions of the linear equations
_
127
64
1 0
1
63
32
1
0 1
125
64
_
_
_
_
y
1
y
2
y
3
_
_
=
_
_
1
16
1
16
15
16
_
_
.
These equations have approximate solution y
1
= 0.173, y
2
= 0.405 and y
3
= 0.687. The Maple code
to solve this system of equations is
> with(linalg):
> A:=array([[-127/64,1,0],[1,-63/32,1],[0,1,-125/64]]);
> b:=array([1/16,1/16,-15/16]);
> x:=linsolve(A,b);
The Maple solution to this problem is
x =
_
83572
484029
,
196090
484029
,
332732
484029
_
.
Solution 12.
The aim is to nd y
1
= y(1/4), y
2
= y(1/2), y
3
= y(3/4) and y
4
= y(1) bearing in mind that only
y
0
= 0 is known from the boundary conditions. The central dierence formulae indicate that y
1
, y
2
,
y
3
and y
4
are the solutions of the linear equations
_
31
16
1 0 0
1
31
16
1 0
0 1
31
16
1
0 1 4 3
_
_
_
_
y
1
y
2
y
3
y
4
_
_
=
_
_
1
0
0
0
_
_
.
These equations have approximate solution y
1
= 1.354, y
2
= 1.623, y
3
= 1.791 and y
4
= 1.847. The
Maple code to solve this system of equations is
> with(linalg):
> A:=array([[-31/16,1,0,0],[1,-31/16,1,0],[0,1,-31/16,1],[0,1,-4,3]]);
> b:=array([-1,0,0,0]);
> x:=linsolve(A,b);
91
x =
_
6192
4573
,
7424
4573
,
8192
4573
,
8448
4573
_
[1.354034551, 1.623441942, 1.791384212, 1.847364968] .
It is straight forward to demonstrate that
y(x) =
cos (1 x)
cos 1
satises the dierential equation and the boundary conditions. The exact values of y
1
, y
2
, y
3
and y
4
are compared with the approximate solution to get
y
1
y
2
y
3
y
4
Exact 1.354221259 1.624243599 1.793278339 1.850815718
Approx 1.354034551 1.623441942 1.791384212 1.847364968
Hand calculation The hand calculation of the solution to this problem working to an accuracy of
3dp involves the manipulation of the augmented matrix as follows:
_
_
1.936 1.000 0.000 0.000 1.000
1.000 1.938 1.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 1.000 1.938 1.000 0.000
0.000 1.000 4.000 3.000 0.000
_
_
1.936 1.000 0.000 0.000 1.000
1.000 1.938 1.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 1.000 1.938 1.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 2.062 2.000 0.000
_
_
1.936 1.000 0.000 0.000 1.000
0.000 1.422 1.000 0.000 0.516
0.000 1.000 1.938 1.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 2.062 2.000 0.000
_
_
1.936 1.000 0.000 0.000 1.000
0.000 1.422 1.000 0.000 0.516
0.000 0.000 1.235 1.000 0.363
0.000 0.000 2.062 2.000 0.000
_
_
1.936 1.000 0.000 0.000 1.000
0.000 1.422 1.000 0.000 0.516
0.000 0.000 2.062 2.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 1.235 1.000 0.363
_
_
The nal step of this calculation gives the upper triangular form
_
_
1.936 1.000 0.000 0.000 1.000
0.000 1.422 1.000 0.000 0.516
0.000 0.000 2.062 2.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.198 0.363
_
_
which in turn leads to the solutions
y
4
= 1.833 , y
3
= 1.778 , y
2
= 1.613 , y
1
= 1.348 .
Solution 13.
The dissection has nodes x
0
= 1, x
1
= 4/3, x
2
= 5/3, and x
3
= 2. The boundary conditions indicate
that y
0
= 0 and y
3
= 4. The remaining unknowns y
1
, y
2
are the subject of the linear equations
_
_
31 14
55
2
49
_
_
_
_
y
1
y
2
_
_
=
_
_
16
9
785
9
_
_
with augmented matrix
B =
_
_
31 14
16
9
55
2
49
785
9
_
_
31 14
16
9
0
1134
31

2655
31
_
_
.
Using back substitution, the solutions are
y
2
=
2655
1134
=
295
126
2.3412 , y
1
1.0000 .
The exact solution to four decimal places is y(4/3) = 0.9978 and y(5/3) = 2.3394.
Solution 14.
Forward dierence The dissection has nodes x
0
= 1, x
1
= 4/3, x
2
= 5/3, and x
3
= 2. The
boundary conditions indicate that only y
4
= 1 is known. The remaining unknowns y
0
, y
1
and y
2
are
the subject of the linear equations
_
_
3 4 1
18 31 14
0
55
2
49
_
_
_
_
y
0
y
1
y
2
_
_
=
_
_
0
16
9
355
18
_
_
in which the forward dierence formula has been used for y
(1). These equations have approximate

solution y
0
= 0.524 y
1
= 0.575 and y
2
= 0.725. The Maple code to solve this system of equations is
93
> with(linalg):
> A:=array([[-3,4,-1],[18,-31,14],[0,55/2,-49]]);
> b:=array([0,16/9,-355/18]);
> x:=linsolve(A,b);
x =
_
43
82
,
212
369
,
535
738
_
.
The exact values of y
0
, y
1
and y
2
y
0
y
1
y
2
Exact 0.629445676 0.658688936 0.772916230
Approx 0.524390244 0.574525745 0.724932249
Fictitious nodes The second and third equations connecting y
0
, y
1
and y
2
are identical to those
derived in the forward dierence approach. The ctitious nodes procedure creates the ctitious
solution y
1
to be determined from the equations
y
1
= y
1
,
y
1
2y
0
+y
1
h
2
+y
0
= 1 , 17y
0
+ 18y
1
= 1 .
The unknowns y
0
, y
1
and y
2
therefore satisfy the linear equations
_
_
17 18 0
18 31 14
0
55
2
49
_
_
_
_
y
0
y
1
y
2
_
_
=
_
_
1
16
9
355
18
_
_
where the ctitious nodes procedure has been used for y
(1). These equations have approximate

solution y
0
= 0.667, y
1
= 0.685 and y
2
= 0.787. The Maple code to solve this system of equations is
> with(linalg):
> A:=array([[-17,18,0],[18,-31,14],[0,55/2,-49]]);
> b:=array([1,16/9,-355/18]);
> x:=linsolve(A,b);
x =
_
2
3
,
37
54
,
85
108
_
.
The exact values of y
0
, y
1
and y
2
y
0
y
1
y
2
Exact 0.629445676 0.658688936 0.772916230
Approx 0.666666667 0.685185185 0.787037037
Solution 15.
From the solution to question 1, Taylors theorem asserts that
u
(x) =
u(x +h) 2u(x) +u(x h)
h
2

h
2
12
u
() +O(h
6
) .
If u
xx
= f(x) then it is clear from this identity that
f(x) =
u(x +h) 2u(x) +u(x h)
h
2

h
2
12
f
(x) +O(h
4
)
which in turn gives
u(x +h) 2u(x) +u(x h)
h
2
= f(x) +
h
2
12
_
f(x +h) 2f(x) +f(x h)
h
2
+O(h
2
)
_
+O(h
4
)
=
1
12
_
f(x h) + 10f(x) +f(x +h)
_
+O(h
4
) .
The equations written out in the question may be derived directly from this identity. In particular,
it is clear that this technique may be applied to any second order dierential equations of type
u
xx
= f(x, u, u
x
), and will allow it to be solved to higher accuracy than might initial be imagined.
Solution 16.
Let (h) = u(x +h, y +h) u(x +h, y h) u(x h, y +h) +u(x h, y h) then simple algebra
gives
(h) = 2h
_
u(x +h, y +h) u(x +h, y h)
2h

u(x h, y +h) u(x h, y h)
2h
_
Each fraction is now expanded as a power series about y using the idea that
u(z, y +h) u(z, y h)
2h
= u
y
(z, y)
h
2
6
u
yyy
(z, )
The result of this operation is that
(h) = 2h
_
u
y
(x +h, y)
h
2
6
u
yyy
(x +h,
1
) u
y
(x h, y) +
h
2
6
u
yyy
(x h,
2
)
_
Applying the same idea to u
y
(x +h, y) u
y
(x h, y) yields
u
y
(x +h, y) u
y
(x h, y) = 2hu
xy
(x, y)
h
3
6
u
xxxy
(
1
, y) .
95
This formula is now used to simplify to obtain
(h) = 4h
2
u
xy
(x, y) +O(h
4
)
from which it is transparent that
2
u(x, y)
xy
=
u(x +h, y +h) u(x +h, y h) u(x h, y +h) +u(x h, y h)
4h
2
+O(h
2
) .
Solution 17.
Under the change of variable x = e
t
, it is easy to see that xu
x
= u
t
. The original equation can be
re-expressed in the form x((xu)
x
)
x
+u = x which then becomes u
tt
+u = e
t
under the given change of
variable. The points x = and x = 1 become respectively t = log and t = 0. The general solution
for u(t) is
u(t) = Asin t +Bcos t +
e
t
2
where A and B are determined by the conditions u(log ) = u(0) = 0. The discretised equation for u
is
u
k+1
2u
k
+u
k1
h
2
+u
k
= e
t
k
u
k+1
(2 h
2
)u
k
+u
k1
= h
2
e
t
k
.
where u
0
= u
n
= 0. The unknowns values u
1
, , u
n1
satisfy the linear system
(2 h
2
)u
1
+u
2
= h
2
e
t
0
u
1
(2 h
2
)u
2
+u
3
= h
2
e
t
1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
u
k1
(2 h
2
)u
k
+u
k+1
= h
2
e
t
k
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
u
n2
(2 h
2
)u
n1
= h
2
e
t
n1
.
This approach is superior because the new dierential equation is not a singular equation.
Solution 18.
Clearly u = sin x satises the initial conditions and the dierential equation.
In the usual notation, the central dierence representation of the dierential equation is
u
k+1
2u
k
+u
k1
h
2
+ 2u
k
u
k+1
u
k1
2h
+u
k
= sin 2x
k
where u
0
= u
n
= 0. This equation further simplies to
u
k+1
2u
k
+u
k1
+hu
k
(u
k+1
u
k1
) +h
2
u
k
= h
2
sin 2x
k
.
Taking account of the boundary conditions, the unknowns u
1
, , u
n1
now satisfy F
1
= F
2
= =
F
n1
= 0 where
F
1
= u
2
2u
1
+hu
1
u
2
+h
2
u
1
h
2
sin 2x
1
.
.
.
F
k
= u
k+1
2u
k
+u
k1
+hu
k
(u
k+1
u
k1
) +h
2
u
k
h
2
sin 2x
k
.
.
.
F
n1
= 2u
n1
+u
n2
hu
n1
u
n2
+h
2
u
n1
h
2
sin 2x
n1
.
The Jacobian matrix of F is
J =
_
_
hu
2
+h
2
2 1 +hu
1
0 0
1 hu
2
h(u
3
u
1
)
+h
2
2
1 +hu
2
0 0
0 1 hu
3

1 hu
k
h(u
k+1
u
k1
)
+h
2
2
1 +hu
k
0 0

0 1 hu
n1
hu
n2
+h
2
2
_
_
Another possible approach is to rewrite the equations F
1
= F
2
= = F
n1
= 0 in the iterative form
u
1
=
u
2
+hu
1
u
2
h
2
sin 2x
1
2 h
2
.
.
.
u
k
=
u
k+1
+u
k1
+hu
k
(u
k+1
u
k1
) h
2
sin 2x
k
2 h
2
.
.
.
u
n1
=
u
n2
hu
n1
u
n2
h
2
sin 2x
n1
2 h
2
Solution 19.
(a) To establish this result rst recognise that
u(x h, y) +u(x +h, y) = 2u(x, y) +h
2

2
u(x, y)
x
2
+
h
4
12
4
u(x, y)
x
4
+O(h
6
) .
97
This result is now used in with y replaced by y +h and y h to get
[u(x h, y +h) +u(x +h, y +h)] + [u(x h, y h) +u(x +h, y h)]
= 2u(x, y +h) + 2u(x, y h) +h
2

2
u(x, y +h)
x
2
+h
2

2
u(x, y h)
x
2
+
h
4
12
4
u(x, y +h)
x
4
+
h
4
12
4
u(x, y h)
x
4
+O(h
6
) .
(6.1)
Taylors theorem is now used to assert that
u(x, y h) +u(x, y +h) = 2u(x, y) +h
2

2
u(x, y)
y
2
+
h
4
12
4
u(x, y)
y
4
+O(h
6
)
2
u(x, y +h)
x
2
+

2
u(x, y h)
x
2
= 2
2
u(x, y)
x
2
+h
2

4
u
x
2
y
2
+O(h
4
)
4
u(x, y +h)
x
4
+

4
u(x, y h)
x
4
= 2
4
u
x
4
+O(h
2
) .
These results are now inserted into (6.1) to obtain
u(x h, y +h) +u(x +h, y +h) 4u(x, y) +u(x h, y h) +u(x +h, y h)
= 2h
2
_
2
u
y
2
+

2
u
x
2
_
+
h
4
6
_
4
u
y
4
+ 6

4
u
x
2
y
2
+

4
u
x
4
_
+O(h
6
)
(6.2)
where all derivative are evaluated at (x, y). The immediate conclusion from this calculation is
2
u
y
2
+

2
u
x
2
=
1
2h
2
_
u(x h, y +h) +u(x +h, y +h) 4u(x, y)
+ u(x h, y h) +u(x +h, y h)
_
+O(h
2
) .
(6.3)
In particular, if u satises Laplaces equation then u
xxxx
+2u
xxyy
+u
yyyy
= 0. This simplication
leads to the particular result
2
u
y
2
+

2
u
x
2
=
1
2h
2
_
u(x h, y +h) +u(x +h, y +h) 4u(x, y)
+ u(x h, y h) +u(x +h, y h)
_
+
2h
2
3
4
u
x
2
y
2
+O(h
4
) .
(6.4)
(b) This result is a combination of result (a) and the standard nite dierence approximation for
the Laplacian of u. Consider rst the Taylor series approximations used in the derivation of
the standard central dierence formula for the Laplacian of u. These are
u(x h, y) +u(x +h, y) = 2u(x, y) +h
2

2
u
x
2
+
h
4
12
4
u
x
4
+O(h
6
) ,
u(x, y h) +u(x, y +h) = 2u(x, y) +h
2

2
u
y
2
+
h
4
12
4
u
y
4
+O(h
6
) .
These results are added together to give
u(x h, y) +u(x +h, y) 4u(x, y) +u(x, y h) +u(x, y +h)
= h
2
_
2
u
x
2
+

2
u
y
2
_
+
h
4
12
_
4
u
x
4
+

4
u
y
4
_
+O(h
6
)
where all derivative are evaluated at (x, y). The immediate conclusion from this calculation is
2
u
y
2
+

2
u
x
2
=
1
h
2
_
u(x h, y) +u(x, y +h) 4u(x, y)
+ u(x, y h) +u(x +h, y)
_
+O(h
2
) .
(6.5)
When u satises Laplaces equation then u
xxxx
+ 2u
xxyy
+ u
yyyy
= 0 and equation (6.5) takes
on the particular form
2
u
y
2
+

2
u
x
2
=
1
h
2
_
u(x h, y) +u(x, y +h) 4u(x, y)
+ u(x, y h) +u(x +h, y)
_
h
2
6
4
u
x
2
y
2
+O(h
4
) .
(6.6)
The result is quoted in the question is constructed by multiplying equation (6.3) by 2h
2
and
adding to that equation (6.6) multiplied by 4h
2
. The truncation error is O(h
2
) in general and
O(h
4
) if u satises Laplaces equation.
Solution 20.
It is required to nd the eigenvalues of H
GJ
= D
1
(L +U) and H
GS
= (D +L)
1
U when
A = L +D +U =
_
_
1 2 4
1/8 1 1
1 4 1
_
_
.
Gauss-Jacobi
If H
GJ
X = X then (D +L +U)X = 0. Thus satises the equation
2 4
1/8 1
1 4
=
3

4
= 0 .
The eigenvalues are = 0 and = 1/2. All eigenvalues lie within the unit circle and so the
Gauss-Jacobi algorithm converges for these equations.
Gauss-Seidel
99
If H
GS
2 4
/8 1
4
=
3
+
7
2
4
2 = 0 .
The eigenvalues are = 0 and = (7
177)/8. Not all eigenvalues lie within the unit circle and
so the Gauss-Seidel algorithm diverges for these equations.
Solution 21.
This is a repetition of the previous problem. It is required to nd the eigenvalues of H
GJ
= D
1
(L+
U) and H
GS
= (D +L)
1
U when
A = L +D +U =
_
_
3 2 1
2 3 2
1 2 3
_
_
.
Gauss-Jacobi
If H
GJ
3 2 1
2 3 2
1 2 3
= 27
3
27 + 8 = 0 .
This cubic factorises into the product (3 1)(9
2
+ 3 8). Consequently, the eigenvalues of H
GJ
are = 1/3 and = (1
33)/6. The spectral radius is = (1 +
33)/6 > 1 and therefore not

all eigenvalues lie within the unit circle. The Gauss-Jacobi algorithm diverges for these equations.
Gauss-Seidel
If H
GS
3 2 1
2 3 2
2 3
= 27
3
23
2
+ 4 = 0 .
The eigenvalues are = 0 and = (23
97)/54. The spectral radius is = (23 +
97)/54 < 1 and

therefore all eigenvalues lie within the unit circle. The Gauss-Seidel algorithm converges for these
equations.
Solution 22.
If H
GS
c 1
c c
c
2
c
=
3
c
4
= 0 .
The eigenvalues are = 0 and = c
2
. The spectral radius is = c
2
and therefore the Gauss-Seidel
algorithm converges for these equations provided | c | < 1.
The Gauss-Jacobi algorithm for these equations with c = 2 requires that the solutions of the equation
2 1
2 2
4 2
=
3
4 12 = 0
lie within the unit circle. If g() =
3
4 12 then g(1) = 15 and g() as . Clearly
there is a zero outside the unit circle and so the Gauss-Jacobi algorithm diverges for these equations.
Solution 23.
Consider the matrix identity
_
_
1 0
V
I
_
_
_
_
1 0
0 C
1
V W
T
_
_
_
_
W
T
0 I
_
_
=
_
_
1 0
V
C
1
V W
T
_
_
_
_
W
T
0 I
_
_
=
_
_
W
T
V C
1
_
_
.
Suppose that C
1
V W
T
/ = L
1
U
1
, then it follows directly from the identity that
_
_
W
T
V C
1
_
_
=
_
_
1 0
V
I
_
_
_
_
1 0
0 L
1
U
1
_
_
_
_
W
T
0 I
_
_
=
_
_
1 0
V
L
1
_
_
_
_
W
T
0 U
1
_
_
.
In particular, if A
T
is diagonally dominated then the rst row of A is the pivotal row. The task is
now to show that if A
T
is diagonally dominated then so is C
T
2
where C
2
= L
1
U
1
. Now
n1
i=1 i=j
| (C
2
)
ij
| =
n1
i=1 i=j
| (C
1
)
ij
v
i
w
j
/|
n1
i=1 i=j
| (C
1
)
ij
| +
w
j
n1
i=1 i=j
| v
i
|
=
_
n
i=1 i=j+1
| A
i,j+1
| | w
j
|
_
+
w
j
_
n1
i=1
| v
i
| | v
j
|
_
_
| (C
1
)
jj
| | w
j
|
_
+
w
j
_
| | | v
j
|
_
= | (C
1
)
jj
|
w
j
v
j
(C
1
)
jj
w
j
v
j
= | (C
2
)
jj
|
where this last inequality is an application of the identity |a| |b| ||a| |b|| |a b|. Thus the
matrix C
2
is diagonally dominated. This analysis forms the basis of an induction assumption to
demonstrate that k
th
iteration of the LU decomposition of A may take the k
th
row as pivotal row -
in eect, no pivoting is required in the LU factorisation of A provided A
T
is diagonally dominated.
101
Solution 24.
(a) To appreciate why each diagonal entry of a symmetric positive denite matrix is positive, it is
enough to note that every positive denite matrix can be represented in the form LDL
T
where
the entries of D are the eigenvalues of A and L is a lower triangular matrix. [Of course, D and
L in the representation LDL
T
are dierent from their usage in the main body of this solution. ]
Furthermore, LDL
T
= (LD
1/2
)(LD
1/2
)
T
= L
1
L
T
1
. Thus
A
ii
=
n
k=1
(L
1
)
ik
(L
T
1
)
ki
=
n
k=1
(L
1
)
ik
(L
1
)
ik
> 0 .
Thus each diagonal entry of A is positive.
(b) Since A = L + D + U is symmetric then U = L
T
. Take D = S
2
and construct H
1
= SHS
1
.
Clearly H and H
1
are similar matrices and therefore have the same eigenvalues. Also
H
1
= SHS
1
= S(D +L)
1
L
T
S
1
= S(S
2
+L)
1
L
T
S
1
= S[S(I +S
1
LS
1
)S]
1
L
T
S
1
= SS
1
(I +S
1
LS
1
)
1
S
1
L
T
S
1
= (I +S
1
LS
1
)
1
S
1
L
T
S
1
= (I +L
1
)
1
L
T
1
where L
1
= S
1
LS
1
.
(c) Furthermore, D
1/2
AD
1/2
= S
1
(D +L +L
T
)S
1
. By writing D = S
2
, it follows that
D
1/2
AD
1/2
= I +S
1
LS
1
+S
1
L
T
S
1
= I +L
1
+L
T
1
.
(d) To show that the Gauss-Seidel algorithm always converges, it is required to show that all the
eigenvalues of H = (D + L)
1
U = (D + L)
1
L
T
lie within the unit circle. Let X be an
eigenvector of H
1
with eigenvalue then H
1
X = X. Therefore,
(I +L
1
)
1
L
T
1
X = X L
T
1
X = (I +L
1
)X X
H
L
T
1
X = X
H
(I +L
1
)X
where X
H
implies transposition of the complex conjugate of X. Take Y = X/| X| then it
follows that Y
H
L
T
1
Y = +Y
H
L
1
Y . Let Y
H
L
T
1
Y = a +ib then
=
a ib
1 +a +ib
| |
2
1 =
1 + 2a
1 + 2a +a
2
+b
2
.
Returning to result (c), it follows immediately that
X
H
D
1/2
AD
1/2
X = X
H
(I +L
1
+L
T
1
)X = X
H
X +X
H
L
1
X +X
H
L
T
1
X > 0 .
On dividing by X
H
X, we obtain
1 +Y
H
L
1
Y +Y
H
L
T
1
Y = 1 + (a +ib) + (a ib) = 1 + 2a > 0
and therefore | |
2
1 < 0, leading to | | < 1. Thus all the eigenvalues of H
1
and so H lie
within the unit circle which in turn ensures that the Gauss-Seidel algorithm always converges
if A is a symmetric and positive denite matrix.
Solution 25.
The region in which the solution is sought consists of sixteen squares as illustrated in the gure.
1
-1
-1 1 u = 0
u = 0
u = 0 u = 0

u
1
u
2
u
3
u
4
The discretised form of the partial dierential equation is
u
i+1,j
+u
i1,j
+u
i,j+1
+u
i,j1
4u
i,j
= 2h
2
where h = 1/2 where 2 i 2 and 2 j 2. We consider each internal node in turn.
Node Position Equation
1 (0, 0) u
1,0
+u
1,0
+u
0,1
+u
0,1
4u
0,0
= 2h
2
2 (1/2, 0) u
2,0
+u
0,0
+u
1,1
+u
1,1
4u
1,0
= 2h
2
4 (0, 1/2) u
1,1
+u
1,1
+u
0,2
+u
0,0
4u
0,1
= 2h
2
5 (1/2, 1/2) u
2,1
+u
0,1
+u
1,2
+u
1,0
4u
1,1
= 2h
2
Furthermore, symmetry requires that u
1
= u
0,0
, u
2
= u
1,0
= u
1,0
, u
3
= u
0,1
= u
0,1
and u
4
= u
1,1
=
u
1,1
= u
1,1
. The boundary conditions are now introduced into the nite dierence equations to
103
obtain
Node Equation
1 2u
2
+ 2u
3
4u
1
= 2h
2
2 u
1
+ 2u
4
4u
2
= 2h
2
4 2u
4
+u
1
4u
3
= 2h
2
5 u
3
+u
2
4u
4
= 2h
2
It is clear from the second and third equations that u
2
= u
3
. With this simplication, u
1
, u
2
and u
4
satisfy
u
1
u
2
= 1/8 , u
1
4u
2
+ 2u
4
= 1/2 , u
2
2u
4
= 1/4 .
Eliminating u
1
between equations 1 and 2 gives
3u
2
+ 2u
4
= 5/8
u
2
2u
4
= 1/4
_
_

u
1
=
9
16
u
2
=
7
16
u
4
=
11
32
.
Solution 26.
The discretised form of the partial dierential equation is
u
i+1,j
+u
i1,j
+u
i,j+1
+u
i,j1
4u
i,j
= h
2
u
3
i,j
where h = 1/2. We consider each internal node in turn.
Node Position Equation
1 (0, 0) u
1,0
+u
1,0
+u
0,1
+u
0,1
4u
0,0
= h
2
u
3
0,0
2 (1/2, 0) u
2,0
+u
0,0
+u
1,1
+u
1,1
4u
1,0
= h
2
u
3
1,0
4 (0, 1/2) u
1,1
+u
1,1
+u
0,2
+u
0,0
4u
0,1
= h
2
u
3
0,1
5 (1/2, 1/2) u
2,1
+u
0,1
+u
1,2
+u
1,0
4u
1,1
= h
2
u
3
1,1
Taking advantage of symmetry and boundary conditions, it is clear that
u
1
= u
0,0
u
2
= u
1,0
= u
1,0
u
3
= u
2,0
u
4
= u
0,1
= u
0,1
u
5
= u
1,1
= u
1,1
= u
1,1
u
6
= u
2,1
.
The simplied form of the nite dierence equations is now
Node Equation
1 2u
2
+ 2u
4
4u
1
= h
2
u
3
1
2 u
3
+u
1
+ 2u
5
4u
2
= h
2
u
3
2
4 2u
5
+c +u
1
4u
4
= h
2
u
3
4
5 u
6
+u
4
+c +u
2
4u
5
= h
2
u
3
5
.
The treatment of the gradient boundary condition can be done in two ways.
Fictitious nodes Using this approach, it follows that u
3,0
= u
1,0
= u
2
and u
3,1
= u
1,1
= u
5
. The
partial dierential equation applied at nodes 3 and 6 yields
Node Equation
3 u
3,0
+u
1,0
+u
2,1
+u
2,1
4u
2,0
= h
2
u
3
2,0
2u
2
+ 2u
6
4u
3
= h
2
u
3
3
6 u
3,1
+u
1,1
+u
2,2
+u
2,0
4u
2,1
= h
2
u
3
2,1
2u
5
+c +u
3
4u
6
= h
2
u
3
6
.
The nite dierence equations are now rewritten in iterative form by solving the equation derived
from node k for u
k
to get
Node Equation Gauss-Seidel Iteration
1 u
1
=
2u
2
+ 2u
4
4 +h
2
u
2
1
u
(k+1)
1
=
2u
(k)
2
+ 2u
(k)
4
4 +h
2
[u
(k)
1
]
2
2 u
2
=
u
3
+u
1
+ 2u
5
4 +h
2
u
2
2
u
(k+1)
2
=
u
(k)
3
+u
(k+1)
1
+ 2u
(k)
5
4 +h
2
[u
(k)
2
]
2
3 u
3
=
2u
2
+ 2u
6
4 +h
2
u
2
3
u
(k+1)
3
=
2u
(k+1)
2
+ 2u
(k)
6
4 +h
2
[u
(k)
3
]
2
4 u
4
=
2u
5
+c +u
1
4 +h
2
u
2
4
u
(k+1)
4
=
2u
(k)
5
+c +u
(k+1)
1
4 +h
2
[u
(k)
4
]
2
5 u
5
=
u
6
+u
4
+c +u
2
4 +h
2
u
2
5
u
(k+1)
5
=
u
(k)
6
+u
(k+1)
4
+c +u
(k+1)
2
4 +h
2
[u
(k)
5
]
2
6 u
6
=
2u
5
+c +u
3
4 +h
2
u
2
6
u
(k+1)
6
=
2u
(k+1)
5
+c +u
(k+1)
3
4 +h
2
[u
(k)
6
]
2
.
Take at starting condition u
(0)
1
= u
(0)
2
= u
(0)
3
= u
(0)
4
= u
(0)
5
= u
(0)
6
= c.
105
Backward dierence Using this approach, it follows that
Node Equation
3 u
x
(1, 0) =
u
0,0
4u
1,0
+ 3u
2,0
2h
= 0 u
1
4u
2
+ 3u
3
= 0
6 u
x
(1, 1/2) =
u
0,1
4u
1,1
+ 3u
2,1
2h
= 0 u
4
4u
5
+ 3u
6
= 0 .
These equation are now used to eliminate u
3
and u
6
to obtain
h
2
u
3
1
= 2u
2
+ 2u
4
4u
1
h
2
u
3
2
=
2
3
u
1
+ 2u
5
8
3
u
2
h
2
u
3
4
= 2u
5
+c +u
1
4u
4
h
2
u
3
5
=
2
5
u
4
+c +u
2
8
3
u
5
.
These equations are rewritten in xed point form for u
1
, u
2
, u
4
and u
5
.
Solution 27.
Each term in the nite dierence scheme is replaced by its appropriate Taylor series. The component
parts are:-
u
i,j+1
u
i,j1
2k
=
u
i,j
t
+O(k
2
)
u
i,j
u
i,j1
k
=
u
i,j
t

k
2
2
u
i,j
t
2
+O(k
2
)
u
i+1,j
2u
i,j
+u
i1,j
h
2
=

2
u
i,j
x
2
+
h
2
12
4
u
i,j
x
4
+O(h
4
)
The component parts are now assembled and lead to the conclusion that
_
u
i,j+1
u
i,j1
2k
_
+ (1 )
_
u
i,j
u
i,j1
k
_
_
u
i+1,j
2u
i,j
+u
i1,j
h
2
_
=
u
i,j
t
+ (1 )
_
u
i,j
t

k
2
2
u
i,j
t
2
_
2
u
i,j
x
2
+
h
2
12
4
u
i,j
x
4
_
+O(k
2
, h
4
)
=
k(1 )
2
2
u
i,j
t
2

h
2
12
4
u
i,j
x
4
+O(k
2
, h
4
)
taking account of the fact that u
t
= u
xx
. Thus the truncation error is
k(1 )
2
2
u
t
2

h
2
12
4
u
x
4
+O(k
2
, h
4
).
Furthermore, u
tt
= u
txx
= u
xxxx
and so this error terms further simplies to
h
2
12
_
6r(1 ) + 1
_

2
u
t
2
+O(k
2
, h
4
) , r =
k
h
2
.
Clearly it is benecial to choose = 1 1/6r.
Solution 28.
The explicit Euler representation of the partial dierential equation is
u
i,j+1
= r u
i+1,j
+ (1 2r) u
i,j
+r u
i1,j
)
where r = k/h
2
. In this application k = 1/20 and h = 1/4, and therefore r = 4/5 and the Euler
algorithm becomes
u
i,j+1
=
1
5
_
4u
i+1,j
3u
i,j
+ 4u
i1,j
_
.
The boundary conditions are u
0,j
= u
4,j
= 0. The system of dierential equations to be solved is
u
1,j+1
=
1
5
_
4u
2,j
3u
1,j
_
u
2,j+1
=
1
5
_
4u
3,j
3u
2,j
+ 4u
1,j
_
u
3,j+1
=
1
5
_
3u
3,j
+ 4u
2,j
_
with initial conditions u
1,0
= 1/
2, u
2,0
= 1 and u
3,0
= 1/
2. It is immediately obvious by
subtracting the rst and third equations that
u
3,j+1
u
1,j+1
=
3
5
_
u
3,j
u
1,j
_
.
Since the initial value of the dierence is zero, then the dierence remains zero, that is, u
1,j
= u
3,j
.
Thus u
i,j
and u
2,j
satisfy
u
1,j+1
=
1
5
_
4u
2,j
3u
1,j
_
u
2,j+1
=
1
5
_
8u
1,j
3u
2,j
_
with initial conditions u
1,0
= 1/
2, u
2,0
= 1. We are required to estimate u
2,2
. First integration
gives
u
1,1
=
1
5
_
4 3/
2
_
=
1
5
2
_
4
2 3
_
u
2,1
=
1
5
_
4
2 3
_
.
First integration gives
u
1,2
=
1
5
_
4u
2,1
3u
1,1
_
=
1
25
2
_
4
2 3
_
2
u
2,2
=
1
5
_
8u
1,1
3u
2,1
_
=
1
25
_
4
2 3
_
2
.
Therefore u
1,2
0.1997 (0.2635) and u
2,2
0.2824 (0.3727). Exact solution is u(x, t) = e
2
t
sin x.
Solution 29.
(a) The Crank-Nicolson algorithm with h = 1/4 and k = 0.1 corresponds to the Courant number
r = 1.6. The re-arranged Crank-Nicolson iterative scheme is therefore
u
i+1,j+1
+
13
4
u
i,j+1
u
i1,j+1
= u
i+1,j
3
4
u
i,j
+ u
i1,j
.
107
0,j
= u
4,j
= 0 giving the simplied iterative algorithm
u
2,j+1
+
13
4
u
1,j+1
= u
2,j
3
4
u
1,j
u
3,j+1
+
13
4
u
2,j+1
u
1,j+1
= u
3,j
3
4
u
2,j
+ u
1,j
13
4
u
3,j+1
u
2,j+1
=
3
4
u
3,j
+ u
2,j
.
As in the previous example, the solution is symmetric about x = 1/2 so that u
1,j
= u
3,j
. With
this additional simplication, it follows that
13
4
u
1,j+1
u
2,j+1
=
3
4
u
1,j
+u
2,j
2u
1,j+1
+
13
4
u
2,j+1
= 2u
1,j
3
4
u
2,j
_
_

u
1,j+1
=
7u
1,j
137
+
40u
2,j
137
u
2,j+1
=
80u
1,j
137

7u
2,j
137
.
With initial conditions u
1,0
= 1/
2 and u
2,0
= 1, it is simple arithmetic to verify that u
1,1
=
0.2558 (0.2635) and u
2,1
= 0.3618 (0.3727).
(b) The Crank-Nicolson algorithm with h = 1/4 and k = 0.025 corresponds to the Courant number
r = 0.4. The re-arranged Crank-Nicolson iterative scheme is therefore
u
i+1,j+1
+ 7u
i,j+1
u
i1,j+1
= u
i+1,j
+ 3u
i,j
+u
i1,j
.
0,j
= u
4,j
= 0 and give rise to the simplied iterative algorithm
u
2,j+1
+ 7u
1,j+1
= u
2,j
+ 3u
1,j
u
3,j+1
+ 7u
2,j+1
u
1,j+1
= u
3,j
+ 3u
2,j
+u
1,j
7u
3,j+1
u
2,j+1
= 3u
3,j
+u
2,j
.
The symmetry of the solution about x = 1/2 means that u
1,j
= u
3,j
. With this additional
simplication, it follows that
7u
1,j+1
u
2,j+1
= 3u
1,j
+u
2,j
2u
1,j+1
+ 7u
2,j+1
= 2u
1,j
+ 3u
2,j
_
_

u
1,j+1
=
23u
1,j
47
+
7u
2,j
47
u
2,j+1
=
20u
1,j
47
+
23u
2,j
47
.
With initial conditions u
1,0
= 1/
2 and u
2,0
= 1, it is straight forward arithmetic to verify that
u
1,1
= 0.49497 and u
2,1
= 0.79026. One further calculation gives u
2,2
= 0.59735 (0.61050).
Solution 30.
The explicit Euler representation of the partial dierential equation is
u
i,j+1
u
i,j
= r x
i
( u
i+1,j
2u
i,j
+u
i1,j
)
where r = k/h
2
. This formulae may in turn be re-written in the explicit form
u
i,j+1
= r x
i
u
i+1,j
+ (1 2r x
i
)u
i,j
+r x
i
u
i1,j
The ctitious nodes procedure for treating the gradient boundary condition introduces a ctitious
solution u
n+1,j
and removes this solution by eliminating it between the equations
u(1/2, 0)
x
=
u
n,j
2
=
u
n+1,j
u
n1,j
2h
u
n+1,j
= u
n1,j
hu
n,j
u(1/2, t)
t
=
1
2
2
u(1/2, t)
x
2
u
n,j+1
=
r
2
u
n+1,j
+ (1 r)u
n,j
+
r
2
u
n1,j
.
The result of this elimination is the condition
u
n,j+1
=
_
1 r
rh
2
_
u
n,j
+ru
n1,j
.
The boundary condition at x = 0 is u
0,j
= 0, and therefore the numerical problem to be solved
consists of the equations
i = 1 u
1,j+1
= (1 2rh)u
1,j
+rhu
2,j
1 < i < n u
i,j+1
= r x
i
u
i+1,j
+ (1 2r x
i
)u
i,j
+r x
i
u
i1,j
i = n u
n,j+1
=
_
1 r
rh
2
_
u
n,j
+ru
n1,j
.
In this example k = 0.005 and h = 1/10, and therefore r = 1/2 and n = 5. The explicit Euler
algorithm algorithm is now particularised to the equations
u
1,j+1
=
18u
1,j
+u
2,j
20
u
2,j+1
=
u
1,j
+ 8u
2,j
+u
3,j
10
u
3,j+1
=
3u
2,j
+ 14u
3,j
+ 3u
4,j
20
u
4,j+1
=
u
3,j
+ 3u
4,j
+u
5,j
5
u
5,j+1
=
20u
4,j
+ 19u
5,j
40
which are iterated starting with
u
1,0
= 0.09 , u
2,0
= 0.16 , u
3,0
= 0.21 , u
4,0
= 0.24 .
To determine whether or not the solution is well-behaved at (1/2, 0), we check if the gradient boundary
condition is satised there. Clearly u(1/2, 0) = 0.35 while the gradient is zero there. Clearly the
gradient boundary condition is not instantaneously satised initially, and so we expect trouble with
the numerical scheme.
109
Solution 31.
The general iterative scheme in the previous question is
i = 1 u
1,j+1
= (1 2rh)u
1,j
+rhu
2,j
1 < i < n u
i,j+1
= r x
i
u
i+1,j
+ (1 2r x
i
)u
i,j
+r x
i
u
i1,j
i = n u
n,j+1
=
_
1 r
rh
2
_
u
n,j
+ru
n1,j
.
The solution of this dierential equation may therefore be written in the form U
j+1
= AU
j
where the
matrix A has form
_
_
(1 2rh) rh 0 0

0 r x
i
(1 2r x
i
) r x
i
0

0 r 1 r
rh
2
_
_
We require the eigenvalues of this matrix to lie within the unit circle. The rst Gershgorin circle is
|z (1 2rh)| = rh. This circle has centre on the x axis and the extremities of its diameter are at
the points (1 rh, 0) and (1 3rh, 0). The second Gershgorin circle is |z (1 2rx
i
)| = rx
i
. This
circle also has centre on the x axis and the extremities of its diameter are at the points (1, 0) and
(1 4rx
i
, 0) where 0 < x
i
< 1/2. These two circles are contained within the unit circle centred on
the origin provided
1 3rh > 1
1 4rx
i
> 1
_
_

2 > 3rh
1 > 2rx
i
_
_
r < 1
since 0 < x
i
< 1/2. The third Gershgorin circle is
z
_
1 r
rh
2
_
= r
This circle also has centre on the x axis and its diameter extends over the interval
1 2r rh/2 < x < 1
rh
2
< 1 .
Thus the third Gershgorin circle is entirely contained within the unit circle provided
1 2r rh/2 > 1 r <
4
4 +h
.
Solution 32.
Some useful Taylor series expansions of u(x +h, t +k) are
u
i,j+1
u
i,j1
2k
=
u
i,j
t
+O(k
2
)
u
i,j+1
u
i,j
k
=
u
i,j
t
+
k
2
2
u
i,j
t
2
+O(k
2
)
u
i+1,j
2u
i,j
+u
i1,j
h
2
=

2
u
i,j
x
2
+
h
2
12
4
u
i,j
x
4
+O(h
4
)
The left hand side of the iterative scheme may be rewritten
2k
_
2u
i,j+1
(u
i+1,j
+u
i1,j
)
_
+
(u
i+1,j
u
i1,j
)
2h
f
i,j
=

2k
_
2(u
i,j+1
u
i,j
) (u
i+1,j
2u
i,j
+u
i1,j
)
_
+
(u
i+1,j
u
i1,j
)
2h
f
i,j
=

2k
_
2k
u
i,j
t
+k
2
2
u
i,j
t
2
h
2
2
u
i,j
x
2

h
4
12
4
u
i,j
x
4
+O(k
3
, h
6
)
_
+
u
i,j
x
+O(h
2
) f
i,j
=
u
i,j
t
+
u
i,j
x
f
i,j
+
k
2
_

2
u
i,j
t
2

h
2
k
2
2
u
i,j
x
2

h
4
12k
2
4
u
i,j
x
4
_
+O(k
2
, h
6
/k, h
2
)
=
k
2
_

2
u
i,j
t
2

h
2
k
2
2
u
i,j
x
2

h
4
12k
2
4
u
i,j
x
4
_
+O(k
2
, h
6
/k, h
2
)
(a) Take r = k/h then the remainder is
k
2
_

2
u
i,j
t
2

1
r
2
2
u
i,j
x
2

h
2
12r
2
4
u
i,j
x
4
_
+O(k
2
, h
5
, h
2
)
As h 0 and k 0 such that r is constant then the remainder also tends to zero and the
scheme is consistent.
(b) Take r = k/h
2
then the remainder is
2
_
k
2
u
i,j
t
2

1
r
2
u
i,j
x
2

h
2
12r
4
u
i,j
x
4
_
+O(k
2
, h
4
, h
2
)
When h 0 and k 0 such that r is constant, the remainder no longer tends to zero and so
the scheme is not consistent. The scheme now gives the solution to the equation
u
t
+u
x
c
2
u
xx
f(x, t) = 0
where c is a positive constant.
Solution 33.
The numerical scheme is
u
i,j+1
u
i,j
= r
_
(u
i1,j+1
2u
i,j+1
+u
i+1,j+1
) + (1 )(u
i1,j
2u
i,j
+u
i+1,j
)
_
111
in the usual notation where [0, 1], h = 1/n and r = k/h
2
is the Courant number. The stability
of this numerical scheme is investigated by substituting
u
p,q
=
q
e
iph
to obtain
q+1
e
iph
q
e
iph
= r
_
(
q+1
e
i(p1)h
2
q+1
e
iph
+
q+1
e
i(p+1)h
)
+ (1 )(
q
e
i(p1)h
2
q
e
iph
+
q
e
i(p+1)h
)
_
.
Cancellation of
q
e
iph
now simplies the previous expression to give
1 = r
_
(e
ih
2 +e
ih
) + (1 )(e
ih
2 +e
ih
)
_
= r (1 +) (e
ih
2 +e
ih
)
= 2r (1 +) (cos h 1) .
This is a linear equation for with solution
=
1 2r (1 ) (1 cos h)
1 + 2r (1 cos h)
.
The denominator of this fraction is always positive and so || < 1 provided
1 2r (1 cos h) < 1 2r (1 ) (1 cos h) < 1 + 2r (1 cos h)
2 2r (1 cos h) < 2r (1 ) (1 cos h) < 2r (1 cos h)
1 r (1 cos h) < r (1 ) (1 cos h) < r (1 cos h)
1 +r (1 2) (1 cos h) < 0 < r (1 cos h)
The right hand inequality simply asserts that r must be positive and so this inequality is satised
automatically. The second inequality asserts that
r <
1
2(1 2) sin
2
(h/2)
In particular, [0, 1/2) to ensure that r > 0. Subject to this constraint on , r must be less than
the minimum upper bound as varies, that is,
0 < r <
1
2(1 2)
, [0, 1/2) .
Solution 34.
Let T denote the tri-diagonal matrix of the question, then
T =
_
_
a b 0 0 0
c a b 0 0
0 c a b 0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
b
0 0 c a
_
_
and let the column vector X
k
be dened by the formula
X
k
=
__
c
b
_
1/2
sin
k
,
_
c
b
_
sin 2
k
, ,
_
c
b
_
j/2
sin j
k
, ,
_
c
b
_
n/2
sin n
k
]
T
.
To establish the required result, it is enough to demonstrate that TX
k
=
k
X
k
for any suitable
integer k.
The computation of the rst and last entries of TX
k
require special attention.
First row of TX
k
gives the matrix product
a
_
c
b
_
1/2
sin
k
+b
_
c
b
_
sin 2
k
=
_
c
b
_
1/2
_
a sin
k
+ 2b
_
c
b
_
1/2
sin
k
cos
k
_
=
_
c
b
_
1/2
sin
k
_
a + 2
bc cos
k
_
=
k
_
c
b
_
1/2
sin
k
.
Intermediate rows of TX
k
, say j
th
row, give the matrix product
c
_
c
b
_
(j1)/2
sin(j 1)
k
+a
_
c
b
_
j/2
sin j
k
+b
_
c
b
_
(j+1)/2
sin(j + 1)
k
=
_
c
b
_
j/2
_
c
_
c
b
_
1/2
sin(j 1)
k
+a sin j
k
+b
_
c
b
_
1/2
sin(j + 1)
k
_
=
_
c
b
_
j/2
_
bc sin(j 1)
k
+a sin j
k
+
bc sin(j + 1)
k
_
=
_
c
b
_
j/2
_
2
bc sin j
k
cos
k
+a sin j
k
_
=
_
c
b
_
j/2
sin j
k
_
a + 2
bc cos
k
_
=
k
_
c
b
_
j/2
sin j
k
.
113
Last row of TX
k
gives the matrix product
c
_
c
b
_
(n1)/2
sin(n 1)
k
+a
_
c
b
_
n/2
sin n
k
=
_
c
b
_
n/2
_
c
_
c
b
_
1/2
sin(n 1)
k
+a sin n
k
_
=
_
c
b
_
n/2
_
bc sin(n 1)
k
+a sin n
k
_
.
The identity sin(n 1)
k
+ sin(n + 1)
k
= 2 sin n
k
cos
k
implies that sin(n 1)
k
= 2 sinn
k
cos
k
in view on the denition of
k
. Therefore,
c
_
c
b
_
(n1)/2
sin(n 1)
k
+a
_
c
b
_
n/2
sin n
k
=
k
_
c
b
_
n/2
sin n
k
.
In conclusion
k
is an eigenvalue of T with eigenvector X
k
.
Solution 35.
The numerical scheme is
u
i,j+1
u
i,j
= r(u
i1,j+1
2u
i,j+1
+u
i+1,j+1
)
in the usual notation where [0, 1], h = 1/n and r = k/h
2
is the Courant number.
(a) The Fourier method investigates the stability of the numerical scheme by substituting
u
p,q
=
q
e
iph
in the scheme to obtain
q+1
e
iph
q
e
iph
= r(
q+1
e
i(p1)h
2
q+1
e
iph
+
q+1
e
i(p+1)h
) .
After cancellation of
q
e
iph
this equation simplies to
1 = r(e
ih
2 +e
ih
) = 2r(cos h 1) = 4rsin
2
h/2 .
Thus it is seen that
=
1
1 + 4rsin
2
h/2
Since 0 < < 1 for all choices of r and positive , then the numerical algorithm is uncondi-
tionally stable.
(b) The Matrix method investigates the stability of the numerical scheme
u
i,j+1
u
i,j
= r(u
i1,j+1
2u
i,j+1
+u
i+1,j+1
)
by rewriting it in the form
ru
i1,j+1
+ (1 + 2r)u
i,j+1
ru
i+1,j+1
= u
i,j
.
0,j
= u
n,j
= 0 and therefore the equations to be solved are
i = 1 (1 + 2r)u
1,j+1
ru
2,j+1
= u
1,j
1 < i < n 1 ru
i1,j+1
+ (1 + 2r)u
i,j+1
ru
i+1,j+1
= u
i,j
i = n 1 ru
n2,j+1
+ (1 + 2r)u
n2,j+1
= u
i,j
.
There equations can be assembled into the tri-diagonal form TU
j+1
= U
j
where T is the tri-
diagonal matrix
T =
_
_
(1 + 2r) r 0
r (1 + 2r) r 0

0 r (1 + 2r) r 0

0 r (1 + 2r)
_
_
The numerical scheme TU
j+1
= U
j
will be stable provided the eigenvalues of T
1
all lie within
the unit circle. However, if the eigenvalues of T
1
all lie within the unit circle, then the
eigenvalues of T are required to lie outside the unit circle to guarantee stability. The eigenvalues
of T are
i
= 1 + 2r + 2 r cos i/n = 1 + 2r(1 + cos i/n) = 1 + 4r sin
2
(i/2n) > 1
and so the previous condition is satised and the numerical scheme is unconditionally stable.
Solution 36.
(a) The Euler algorithm is
u
i,j+1
r u
i+1,j
(1 2r) u
i,j
r u
i1,j
= 0 .
To establish the consistency of this scheme, it is convenient to re-express the scheme in the
form
u
i,j+1
u
i,j
r (u
i+1,j
2 u
i,j
+ u
i1,j
) = 0 .
The component quantities appearing in this algorithm are now replaced by their Taylor series
forms
u
i,j+1
u
i,j
= k
u
i,j
t
+
k
2
2
2
u
i,j
t
2
+O(k
2
)
u
i+1,j
2 u
i,j
+ u
i1,j
= h
2
2
u
i,j
x
2
+
h
4
12
4
u
i,j
x
4
+O(h
6
)
115
to obtain
u
i,j+1
u
i,j
r (u
i+1,j
2 u
i,j
+ u
i1,j
)
= k
u
i,j
t
+
k
2
2
2
u
i,j
t
2
r
_
h
2
2
u
i,j
x
2
+
h
4
12
4
u
i,j
x
4
_
+O(k
2
, rh
6
)
= k
_
u
i,j
t

2
u
i,j
x
2
_
+
k
2
2
2
u
i,j
t
2

kh
2
12
4
u
i,j
x
4
+O(k
2
, kh
4
)
=
k
2
2
2
u
i,j
t
2

kh
2
12
4
u
i,j
x
4
+O(k
2
, kh
4
) .
This tends towards zero as h 0
+
and k 0
+
and so the Euler algorithm is consistent. Note
again that the choice r = 1/6 is particularly benecial in the case of the diusion equation.
(b) The Richardson algorithm is
u
i,j+1
u
i,j1
2r (u
i+1,j
2u
i,j
+u
i1,j
) = 0 .
The component quantities appearing in this algorithm are now replaced by their Taylor series
forms
u
i,j+1
u
i,j1
= 2k
u
i,j
t
+
k
3
3
2
u
i,j
t
2
+O(k
5
)
u
i+1,j
2 u
i,j
+ u
i1,j
= h
2
2
u
i,j
x
2
+
h
4
12
4
u
i,j
x
4
+O(h
6
)
to obtain
u
i,j+1
u
i,j1
2r (u
i+1,j
2u
i,j
+u
i1,j
)
= 2k
u
i,j
t
2r
_
h
2
2
u
i,j
x
2
+
h
4
12
4
u
i,j
x
4
_
+O(k
3
, rh
6
)
= 2k
_
u
i,j
t

2
u
i,j
x
2
_
kh
2
6
4
u
i,j
x
4
+O(k
3
, kh
4
)
=
kh
2
6
4
u
i,j
x
4
+O(k
3
, kh
4
) .
This tends towards zero as h 0
+
and k 0
+
and so the Richardson algorithm is consistent.
Solution 37.
The stability of the 2-D ADI algorithm is investigated by the substitution
u
n
p,q
=
n
e
i(p+q)h
.
2
x
u = (e
ih
2 +e
ih
) u = 2(cos h 1) u = 4(sin
2
h/2) u,
2
y
u = (e
ih
2 +e
ih
) u = 2(cos h 1) u = 4(sin
2
h/2) u.
The quantity u
n+1
is rst eliminated between the equations
(1 r
2
x
) u
n+1
= (1 +r
2
y
) u
n
,
(1 r
2
y
)u
n+1
= u
n+1
r
2
y
u
n
by applying the operator (1 r
2
x
) to the second equation and then taking advantage of the rst
equation. The result of this procedure is
(1 r
2
x
)(1 r
2
y
)u
n+1
= (1 +r
2
y
) u
n
r(1 r
2
x
)
2
y
u
n
.
Taking account of the auxiliary observations,
(1 + 4r sin
2
(h/2))(1 + 4r sin
2
(h/2)) = (1 4r sin
2
(h/2)) + 4r(1 + 4r sin
2
(h/2))(sin
2
h/2)
= 1 + 16r
2
sin
2
(h/2) sin
2
(h/2) .
Thus we see that
0 < =
1 + 16r
2
sin
2
(h/2) sin
2
(h/2)
1 + 4r sin
2
(h/2) + 4r sin
2
(h/2) + 16r
2
sin
2
(h/2) sin
2
(h/2)
< 1 .
Thus the 2-D ADI method yields is unconditionally stable.
Solution 38.
The the 3-D ADI method is given by the iterative scheme
(1 r
2
x
)u
n+1
= (1 +r
2
y
+r
2
z
)u
n
,
(1 r
2
y
)u
n+2
= (1 +r
2
x
+r
2
z
)u
n+1
,
(1 r
2
z
)u
n+3
= (1 +r
2
x
+r
2
y
)u
n+2
.
The quantity u
n+1
is rst eliminated by multiplying the second equation by the operator (1 r
2
x
)
and then using the rst equation. The result of this procedure is
(1 r
2
x
)(1 r
2
y
)u
n+2
= (1 +r
2
x
+r
2
z
)(1 r
2
x
)u
n+1
= (1 +r
2
x
+r
2
z
)(1 +r
2
y
+r
2
z
)u
n
.
The quantity u
n+2
is now eliminated by multiplying the third equation by the operator (1r
2
x
)(1
r
2
y
) and then using the equation above. The result of this procedure is
(1 r
2
x
)(1 r
2
y
)(1 r
2
z
)u
n+3
= (1 +r
2
x
+r
2
y
)(1 +r
2
x
+r
2
z
)(1 +r
2
y
+r
2
z
)u
n
.
The stability of the 3-D ADI algorithm is investigated by the substitution
u
n
p,q
=
n
e
i(p+q+s)h
.
117
2
x
u = (e
ih
2 +e
ih
) u = 2(cos h 1) u = 4 sin
2
(h/2) u,
2
y
u = (e
ih
2 +e
ih
) u = 2(cos h 1) u = 4 sin
2
(h/2) u,
2
z
u = (e
ih
2 +e
ih
) u = 2(cos h 1) u = 4 sin
2
(h/2) u.
As in the previous question, it is straight forward algebra to conrm that satises
3
=
[1 4r(sin
2
(h/2) + sin
2
(h/2))][1 4r(sin
2
(h/2) + sin
2
(h/2)][1 4r(sin
2
(h/2) + sin
2
(h/2)]
(1 + 4r sin
2
(h/2))(1 + 4r sin
2
(h/2))(1 + 4r sin
2
(h/2))
.
In order to facilitate the discussion of
3
, write
x = 4r sin
2
(h/2) , y = 4r sin
2
(h/2) , z = 4r sin
2
(h/2)
so that
3
=
[1 x y][1 x z][1 y z]
[1 +x][1 +y][1 +z]
.
By symmetry, the minimum/maximum values of
3
occur where x = y = z. In this case
3
=
_
1 2x
1 +x
_
3
,
and this value will lie within || < 1 provided
1 <
1 2x
1 +x
< 1 , 1 x < 1 2x < 1 +x, 2 +x < 0 < 3x.
Since x 0 by construction then we require 4r sin
2
(h/2) < 2 for all choices of . Thus r 1/2 to
guarantee stability.
Solution 39.
The central dierence numerical scheme for the solution of the diusion equation is
du
k
dt
=
1
h
2
_
u
k+1
2u
k
+u
k1
_
+f
k
(t) +O(h
2
) , k = 1, 2, , n 1
where f
k
(t) = f(kh, t). The solution at x = 0 is given by the boundary condition u
0
(t) = 0, and
therefore it remains to construct the dierential equation for u
n
(t) using the boundary condition.
In the ctitious nodes procedure, this equation is determined by eliminating the ctitious solution
u
n+1
(t) between the equations
du
n
dt
=
1
h
2
_
u
n+1
2u
n
+u
n1
_
+f
n
(t) +O(h
2
)
u
n+1
u
n1
2h
=
u(x
n
, t)
x
+
h
2
6
3
u(x
n
, t)
x
3
+O(h
4
) = g(t) +
h
2
6
3
u(x
n
, t)
x
3
+O(h
4
) .
(6.7)
The second equation yields
u
n+1
= u
n1
+ 2h
u(x
n
, t)
x
+O(h
3
) = u
n1
+ 2hg(t) +
h
3
3
3
u(x
n
, t)
x
3
+O(h
5
)
and when this identity is substituted into the rst of equation (6.7), the result is that u
n
(t) satises
du
n
dt
=
1
h
2
_
2u
n1
+ 2hg(t) +
h
3
3
3
u(x
n
, t)
x
3
+O(h
5
) 2u
n
_
+f
n
(t) +O(h
2
)
=
2(u
n1
u
n
)
h
2
+
2g(t)
h
+f
n
(t) +
h
3
3
u(x
n
, t)
x
3
+O(h
3
) .
Thus the dierential equation satised by u
n
is only O(h) accurate and so the solution of the nite
dierence equations in this case are O(h) accurate.
Clearly O(h
3
) accuracy is recovered whenever
3
u(x
n
, t)/x
3
= 0. It follows directly from the
dierential equation that
3
u(x
n
, t)
x
3
=

x
_
u(x
n
, t)
t
f(x, t)
_
=

t
_
u(x
n
, t)
x
_
f(x
n
, t)
x
=
dg
dt

f(x
n
, t)
x
.
Thus O(h
3
) accuracy is recovered provided
dg
dt
=
f(x
n
, t)
x

NSPDE

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NSPDE

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

NSPDE

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Department of Mathematics

Numerical Solution of Partial

(x) by these formulae is proportional to h

f(x) (error between the exact solution

= f(x) at the node x

(1) = 0. The results on the left

(1) = 0. Both imple-

+xy = 1, y(0) = 0, y(1) = 1

(1) = 0. Verify that the exact solution

(0) = 0, then Maclaurins theorem applied to g(h) gives

(x) f(x +h) +f(x h) =

(x) f(x+h) +2f(x) f(xh) then clearly g(0) = 0. Four dierentiations

(0) = 0, then Maclaurins theorem applied to g(h) gives

(x) in part (a), it follows that there exist such that

(x) f(x +h) + 2f(x) f(x h) =

(x) 3f(x) +O(h

(x). A backward dierence formula can be obtained by

(1). These equations have approximate

(1). These equations have approximate

33)/6. The spectral radius is = (1 +

33)/6 > 1 and therefore not

97)/54. The spectral radius is = (23 +

97)/54 < 1 and

You might also like