Scribd
Upload
60 views6 pages

Comparison of Two Different Implementations of A Finite-Difference-Method For First-Order Pde in M and M

Uploaded by

EMella
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
60 views6 pages

Comparison of Two Different Implementations of A Finite-Difference-Method For First-Order Pde in M and M

Uploaded by

EMella
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 6

Comparison of two different implementations of a

finite-difference-method for first-order pde in


M ATHEMATICA® and M ATLAB®
arXiv:cs.CE/0506051 v2 11 Nov 2005

Heiko Herrmann∗ † Gunnar Rückner∗

Abstract
In this article two implementations of a symmetric finite difference algorithm (ftcs-method)
for a first-order partial differential equation are discussed. The considered partial differen-
tial equation discribes the time evolution of the crack length ditribution of microcracks in
brittle materia.

1 Physics and analytical solution


The growth rate of microcracks in a brittle material can be discribed by a mesoscopic equation.
Here the specialized version for uniaxial loading is presented.
∂f (l, t) 1 ∂l2 vl (l, t)f (l, t)
= − 2 , (1)
∂t l ∂l
f (l, t) is the distribution function for the crack length l at time t, vl = l˙ is the growth velocity
of the cracks. A Rice-Griffith-like dynamic is assumed for crack growth, which gives
(
−α′ + β ′ lσ(t)2 , if α′ ≤ β ′ lσ 2
l˙ = (2)
0 , otherwise
The theory is given in detail in [1]. For an exponential (or a step-wise) initial condition and
constant loading speed it is possible to give an exact analytical solution, which is also presented
in [1] and looks like:
  
β ′ v2 β ′ v2 2
−2 − 3 σ t3 − 3 σ t3 α′ β ′ vσ 3
l e F le + (9β ′ v2 )1/3 Γ(1/3, 0, 3 t ) , if α′ ≤ β ′ vσ2 lt2



σ
f (l, t) = (3)



f (l, 0) , otherwise.

∗
Technische Universität Berlin – Institut für Theoretische Physik – Sekr.: PN 7-1 – Hardenbergstr. 36 – 10623
Berlin – Germany
†
Correspondend autor: Heiko Herrmann

1
(a) step-wise initial condition (b) step-wise initial condition

(c) exponential initial condition

Figure 1: Analytical solution for crack lenght distributuion. Shown is f (l, t)l2 over l and t.

2
2 The numerical algorithm
The partial differential equations are first order in time and crack length. Two different al-
gorithms, upwind and fcts (forward time centered space), have been tested. The symmetric
algorithm (ftcs-method) is in this case a bit more stable than the upwind, which is somewhat
astonishing. Both algorithms can be found in [2].
In the symmetric algorithm f (l, t + 1) is calculated from f (l − 1, t), f (l, t) and f (l + 1, t) by
   
2 2α 2

f (l, t + 1) = f (l, t) 1 − 3βσ (t) − )dt − dl lβσ (t) − α ×
dl l
dt
× (f (l + 1, t) − f (l − 1, t)) (4)
2dl
This is what the main part of the implementation in M ATHEMATICA® looks like:
For[t = 1, t < TMAX, t++, For[l = 1, l < LMAX, l++,
If[l*dl*(t*dt)^2*be - al > 0,
If[l == 0, f[l, t + 1] = f[l, t],
f[l, t + 1] =
f[l, t]*(1 - (3*be*(t*dt)^2 - (2*al)/(dl*l))*dt) -
(dl*l*be*(t*dt)^2 - al)*dt/dl*(f[l + 1, t] - f[l - 1, t])],
f[l, t + 1] = f[l, t]
]
]
]

This is what the main part of the implementation in M ATLAB® looks like:
for t=1:1:TMAX-1
for l=1:1:LMAX-1
if (l.*dl.*sigma(t).*beta-alpha > 0)
f(l,t+1)=f(l,t).*(1-(3.*beta.*(sigma(t)).^2 - ...
(2.*alpha)./(dl.*l)).*dt)-(dl.*l.*beta.*(sigma(t)).^2 - ...
alpha).*dt./(2*dl).*(f(l+1,t)-f(l-1,t));
else
f(l,t+1)=f(l,t);
end
end
end

3
3 Results obtained by M ATHEMATICA®
M ATHEMATICA® is a general purpose computer algebra system (cas) by Wolfram Research
Inc.. As one can see the solution shows some wave-like efects, which can be interpreted as a

(a) step-wise initial condition (b) exponential initial condition

Figure 2: Numerical solution for crack lenght distributuion calculated with M ATHEMATICA®

sign for numerical instability. This instability is a result of the discontinous initial condition.

4
4 Results obtained by M ATLAB®
M ATLAB® is a tool for numerical mathematics, especially designed for matrix manipulation,
by The MathWorks Inc.. Here in both cases huge instabilities occur. As soon as some cracks

(a) step-wise initial condition (b) exponential initial condition

Figure 3: Numerical solution for crack lenght distributuion calculated with M ATLAB®

start growing the numerical error goes to infinity. The following pictures show an extract of the
above pictures.

(a) step-wise initial condition (b) exponential initial condition

Figure 4: Numerical solution for crack lenght distributuion calculated with M ATLAB® (extract
of figure 3)

5
5 Comparison of the results and conclusion
Obviously the results, obtained with both programs, show huge errors. But in contrast to the
results calculated with M ATLAB® , one can use the results obtained with M ATHEMATICA® at
least for some rough predictions.
The difference in the two software packages, used for these simulations, is that M ATLAB® uses
floating-point variables of precision “double” (16 byte), whereas M ATHEMATICA® is capable
of both numerical and symolic computation. Therefore it is possible that M ATHEMATICA® uses
a much higher precision to perform some of the operations than M ATLAB® .

Acknowledgement
We thank Dr. Christina Papenfuß and Dr. Peter Ván for discussions. Financial support by the
DAAD, OTKA and by the VISHAY Company, 95100 Selb, Germany, is greatfully acknowl-
edged.

References
[1] P. Ván, C. Papenfuss, and W. Muschik. Griffith cracks in the mesoscopic microcrack theory.
Journal of Physics A, 37(20):5315–5328, 2004. (cond-mat/0211207).

[2] W. H. Press, S. A. Teukolsky, W. T Vetterling, and B. P. Flannery. Numerical Recipes in C.


Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, USA, 1994.

You might also like