Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ain Shams Engineering Journal

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com

Engineering Physics and Mathematics

Two different temporal domain integration schemes combined with

compact finite difference method to solve modified Burgers’ equation
Ravneet Kaur a, Shallu a, V.K. Kukreja a,⇑, Nabendra Parumasur b, Pravin Singh b
a
Department of Mathematics, SLIET, Longowal 148106, Punjab, India
b
School of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4000, South Africa

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The modified Burgers’ equation has application in various fields such as explosions and sonic boom the-
Received 19 February 2021 ory, propagation of torsional waves in thin circular viscoelastic rod, acoustic waves produced by laser
Revised 1 May 2021 radiations, etc. A sixth-order compact finite difference scheme has been used for the space integration.
Accepted 27 May 2021
Two different approaches have been followed for time integration. One is the Crank-Nicolson scheme
Available online xxxx
in which the nonlinear term is handled with a quasilinearization process. Another is the strong stability
preserving Runge-Kutta method of four stage, third-order convergence (SSP-RK43), in which no lineariza-
Keywords:
tion is required. The stability analysis for both the schemes has been presented and is shown to be stable.
Modified Burgers’ equation
Compact finite difference scheme
Few test problems have been solved, demonstrating the performance of the proposed techniques. The L2
Crank-Nicolson and L1 error norms are calculated and are compared with the previous work. The aim of the paper is to
Quasilinearization solve such an important equation with better accuracy and less computational efforts.
SSP-RK43 Ó 2021 THE AUTHORS. Published by Elsevier BV on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams Uni-
Von-Neumann versity. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction with the initial condition:

The Burgers’ equation, which was originally formulated by
Bateman [1], is a combination of convection and diffusion factors.
This equation conserves all the qualities of the Navier-Stokes equa-
tion and quantifies the conservative laws also. Burger [2] exten-
sively worked on the turbulence effect and its statistical aspects.
He studied the Navier-Stokes equation by dropping the pressure
term, defined it for the turbulence, and the approximate theory
of flow in a viscous medium through a shock wave. Nariboli and
Lin [3] derived the modified Burgers’ equation for the propagation
of the shear shocks in the viscoelastic materials and for ‘switch-on’
shocks in the magnetogasdynamics. The one dimensional modified
Burgers’ equation (MBE) is as follows:
@W @W @2W
þ Wd  l 2 ¼ 0; ðx; tÞ 2 ða; bÞ  ð0; TÞ;
@t @x @x
Wðx; 0Þ ¼ gðxÞ; a 6 x 6 b; ð1:2Þ
and the boundary conditions:
Wða; tÞ ¼ h1 ðtÞ and Wðb; tÞ ¼ h2 ðtÞ; t 2 ½0; T; ð1:3Þ
where l > 0 is the positive coefficient of kinematic viscosity and
gðxÞ; h1 ðtÞ; h2 ðtÞ are the prescribed smooth functions. Due to the
nonlinear term, MBE has numerous applications like propagation
of torsional waves in a thin circular viscoelastic rod [4], nonlinear
evolution waves in low-density plasma with strong magnetic field
[5], ionized gases [6], acoustic waves produced by laser radiations
[7], explosions and sonic boom theory [8], etc.
The case d ¼ 1 corresponds to the Burgers’ equation (BE) for
which the exact solution was obtained using the Cole-Hopf trans-
ð1:1Þ formation [9,10]. Numerically, the BE has been solved by various
techniques such as finite element method (FEM) [11], finite differ-

⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: vkkukreja@gmail.com (V.K. Kukreja), parumasurn1@ukzn.ac.za (N. Parumasur), singhp@ukzn.ac.za (P. Singh).
Peer review under responsibility of Ain Shams University.

Production and hosting by Elsevier

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2021.05.021
2090-4479/Ó 2021 THE AUTHORS. Published by Elsevier BV on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Please cite this article as: R. Kaur, Shallu, V.K. Kukreja et al., Two different temporal domain integration schemes combined with compact finite difference
method to solve modified Burgers’ equation, Ain Shams Engineering Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2021.05.021
R. Kaur, Shallu, V.K. Kukreja et al. Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

ence scheme [12], automatic differentiation [13], modified local In Section 4, the stability analysis for both the schemes has been
Crank-Nicolson method [14], modified cubic B-spline collocation presented. Various test problems are discussed to elaborate and
method in combination with SSP-RK43 scheme [15], modified justify the applicability of the proposed scheme in Section 5. Sec-
cubic B-spline differential quadrature method (MCSDQM) [16], tion 6, concludes the applicability and the efficiency of the method.
Crank-Nicolson exponential finite difference method [17], cubic
Hermite collocation method [18], mesh independent moving least 2. Sixth-order compact finite difference scheme
square particle hydrodynamics method [19], high-order compact
difference method [20], upwind finite difference scheme for the The sixth-order compact finite difference scheme (CFD6) can be
spatial derivatives and backward-difference scheme for the time implemented broadly in two ways, implicitly and explicitly. In the
derivative [21], etc. explicit method, the derivatives are calculated directly using the
As compared to the Burgers’ equation, it is highly complicated finite differences based on the Taylor’s series at each of the mesh
to obtain the analytical solution of the modified Burgers’ equation. points by taking a large stencil. It may lead to erroneous results
Nimmo and Crighton [22] proved that the MBE cannot be solved at various internal mesh points. In the implicit method, a very
using the linear transformations as seen in the case of Burgers’ small stencil is considered to calculate the derivatives, which leads
equation. Therefore, asymptotic and numerical analysis plays a to more precise calculations at mesh points, hence it improves the
vital role in understanding the nature of such cases. The asymp- interpolated values. The later approach has been implemented in
totic solution of the MBE for N-wave initial condition (for d P 2) the present work, as it provides better results.
was presented by Sachdev and Rao [23] whereas, for large time, Consider the spatial domain X ¼ ½a; b and the time domain
the asymptotic solution for the sinusoidal initial conditions was ½0; T. The domain ½a; b  ½0; T is divided into uniform mesh using
given by Sachdev et al. [24]. the node points xk ¼ xk1 þ h; k ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; N on the spatial domain
Tilldate, various numerical techniques have been implemented with the step size h ¼ ba and a uniform step of size Dt ¼ tjþ1  t j
N
to solve the MBE such as the septic B-spline collocation method
such that tj ¼ jDt for j ¼ 0; 1; 2; . . .is followed for the time domain.
[25], quintic B-spline collocation technique along with Crank-
The procedure for calculating the first and second-order deriva-
Nicolson scheme [26], lattice Boltzmann method [27], quintic B-
tives is given hereunder:
spline collocation method [28], septic B-spline collocation method
with Crank-Nicolson scheme for the time-integration [29], wave
2.1. Spatial derivatives of first-order
solution by the exponential function method [30], fourth-order
finite difference scheme for the spatial discretization with modi-
The first-order spatial derivatives for the compact finite differ-
fied predictor-corrector scheme [31], Petrov-Galerkin method with
ence scheme at the interior node points are evaluated as follows
cubic B-spline [32], quartic B-spline sub-domain finite element
[42,43]:
method and quartic B-spline differential quadrature method [33],

w  w 
w  w 
Haar wavelet finite-difference hybrid scheme [34], differential kw0k1 þ w0k þ kw0kþ1 ¼ a
kþ2 k2
þb
kþ1 k1
: ð2:1Þ
quadrature method with quintic B-spline [35], cubic B-spline collo- 4h 2h
cation method [36], quintic trigonometric B-splines for space Using the Taylor’s series expansion:
domain and Crank-Nicolson for time integration [37], collocation h i h i
ð1Þ ð2Þ 2 ð3Þ 3 4 ð5Þ ð1Þ ð1Þ ð2Þ 2 ð3Þ 3 4 ð5Þ
method in combination with Haar wavelet [38], modified cubic k wk hwk þh2! wk h3! wk ð4Þ þh4! wk þ... þwk þk wk þhwk þh2! wk þh3! wk ð4Þ þh4! wk þ...
h
2 3 4 5 6

ð1Þ ð2Þ ð3Þ ð4Þ ð5Þ ð6Þ
B-spline with differential quadrature method [39], improvised ¼4h a wk þ2hwk þð2hÞ 2!
wk þð2hÞ 3!
wk þð2hÞ 4!
wk þð2hÞ 5!
wk þð2hÞ 6!
wk þ...
cubic B-spline collocation method along with Crank-Nicolson
2 3 4 5 6
i
ð1Þ ð2Þ ð3Þ ð4Þ ð5Þ ð6Þ
 wi 2hwi þð2hÞ 2!
wi ð2hÞ 3!
wi þð2hÞ 4!
wi ð2hÞ 5!
wi þð2hÞ 6!
wi þ...
scheme [40], etc. The two-dimensional time fractional Burgers’ h

ð1Þ 2 ð2Þ 3 ð3Þ 4 ð4Þ 5 ð5Þ 6 ð6Þ
equation has been solved using the Crank-Nicolson method [41]. þ2h
b
wi þhwi þh2! wi þh3! wi þh4! wi þh5! wi þh6! wi þ...

i
The objective of any numerical technique is to generate match- ð1Þ 2 ð2Þ 3 ð3Þ 4
 wi hwi þh2! wi h3! wi þh4! wi h5! wi þh6! wi þ... :
ð4Þ 5 ð5Þ 6 ð6Þ

ing results with the exact ones, i.e., with the least error and least
computational time. Also, to compute the solution of those equa- For the sixth-order accuracy of the scheme, the terms up to fourth-
tions where exact solutions are not available. The standard 4
order (h ) are taken. The coefficients of the leading truncation error
second-order methods become less suitable because more grid are given below:
points are required for accuracy and in many cases, the application 2 32 3 2 3
of the technique is more complicated. To overcome such situations, 1 1 b 1
1
6 76 7 6 7
the compact finite difference scheme (CFDS) was applied by [42– 41 4 6 54 a 5 ¼ 4 0 5
44] and many others. They used fourth-order CFDS in which two 1 16 10 k 0
additional nodes are required at the boundary points, besides the h

i
ð2hÞ7 ð7Þ h7 ð7Þ
standard three points to achieve the higher-order of accuracy. Hence, the truncation error is a
4h 7!
wk þ 2h
b
7!
wk ,
The additional nodes almost preclude the use of fourth-order 43k10 6 ð7Þ
which on simplification reduces to showing a sixth- h wk ,
implicit methods, since the resultant matrix is not simply tridiag- 7!

onal. Later on, using higher-order derivative and Taylor’s series order scheme. This gives k ¼ 13, representing an implicit scheme
expansion, sixth-order CFDS (CFD6) was constructed. A number of first-order derivative. The unknown constants on the right-
of authors [45–51] solved different types of problems using CFD6. hand side are related as a ¼ 13 ð4k  1Þ and b ¼ 23 ð2 þ kÞ. By making
In the present work, the sixth-order compact finite difference necessary substitutions, Eq. (2.1) reduces to a sixth-order tridiago-
scheme (CFD6) has been implemented to solve the modified Burg- nal scheme as:
ers’ equation (1.1), with the aim to obtain more accurate results wk2  28wk1 þ 28wkþ1 þ wkþ2
with less computational effort and time. Two different approaches w0k1 þ 3w0k þ w0kþ1 ¼ ; k
12h
have been followed for the temporal integration. The paper is orga-
¼ 2; 3; . . . ; N  2: ð2:2Þ
nized as follows: in Section 2, first and second-order derivatives of
the CFD6 have been derived. In Section 3, the implementation of
Crank-Nicolson and SSP-RK43 scheme on the MBE has been given.

2
R. Kaur, Shallu, V.K. Kukreja et al. Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

For the value of the derivative at x0 ; x1 ; xN , and xNþ1 , one-sided taken to improve the accuracy of the scheme. Therefore, on the
forward and backward schemes are implemented, which produce interior points, the tridiagonal behaviour of the scheme is as
the following results: follows:
 
w00 þ5w01 ¼60h
1
ð197w0 25w1 þ300w2 100w3 þ25w4 3w5 Þ; wkþ2  2wk þ wk2
kw00k1 þ w00k þ kw00kþ1 ¼ a
2w00 þ11w01 þ2w02 ¼12h
1
ð80w0 35w1 þ136w2 28w3 þ8w4 w5 Þ; 4h
2

2w0N2 þ11w0N1 þ2w0N ¼12h

1
ðwN5 8wN4 þ28wN3 136wN2 þ35wN1 þ80wN Þ;  
wkþ1  2wk þ wk1
5w0N1 þw0N ¼60h
1
ð3wN5 25wN4 þ100wN3 300wN2 þ25wN1 þ197wN Þ: þb 2
: ð2:5Þ
ð2:3Þ
h
Using the Taylor’s series expansion:
The relations (2.2) and (2.3) can be represented in the form of a h i
ð2Þ ð3Þ 2 ð4Þ 3 4 ð6Þ 5 ð7Þ 6 ð8Þ 7 ð9Þ 8 ð10Þ
matrix system as follows: k wk hwk þh2! wk h3! wk ð5Þ þh4! wk h5! wk þh6! wk h7! wk þh8! wk ...
h i
Aw0 ¼ Bw ð2:4Þ ð2Þ ð2Þ ð3Þ ð4Þ ð6Þ ð7Þ ð8Þ ð9Þ ð10Þ
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
þwk þk wk þhwk þh2! wk þh3! wk ð5Þ þh4! wk þh5! wk þh6! wk þh7! wk þh8! wk þ...
h
2 3 4 5 6

ð1Þ ð2Þ ð3Þ ð4Þ ð5Þ ð6Þ
where ¼4ha2 wk þ2hwk þð2hÞ 2!
wk þð2hÞ 3!
wk þð2hÞ 4!
wk þð2hÞ 5!
wk þð2hÞ 6!
wk þ...
2 3 2 3
2 3 4 5 6
i
ð1Þ ð2Þ ð3Þ ð4Þ ð5Þ ð6Þ
1 5 w00 2wk þ wk 2hwk þð2hÞ 2!
wk ð2hÞ 3!
wk þð2hÞ 4!
wk ð2hÞ 5!
wk þð2hÞ 6!
wk ...
6 2 11 2 7 6 w0 7 h

6 7 6 1 7 ð1Þ ð2Þ ð3Þ ð4Þ ð5Þ ð6Þ
2 3 4 5 6
þ2hb
wk þhwk þh2! wk þh3! wk þh4! wk þh5! wk þh6! wk þ...
6 7 6 0 7
i
6 1 3 1 7 6 w2 7
6 7 6 7 ð1Þ 2 ð2Þ 3 ð3Þ
2wk þ wk hwk þh2! wk h3! wk þh4! wk h5! wk þh6! wk þ... :
4 ð4Þ 5 ð5Þ 6 ð6Þ
6 : : : 7 6 : 7
6 7 0 6 7
A¼6 7; w ¼6 7
6 : : : 7 6 : 7 To obtain the sixth-order accuracy, eliminate the leading truncation
6 7 6 7
6 1 3 1 7 6 w0 7
6 7 6 N2 7 error coefficients up to fourth-order as discussed above:
6 7 6 0 7 2 32 3 2 3
4 2 11 2 5 4 wN1 5 1 1b 2
1
5 1 w0N 6 76 7 6 7
4 4 1 12 54 a 5 ¼ 4 0 5
and 16 1 30 k 0
2 3 h

i
 197
60
 25
60
300
60
 100
60
25
60
 60
3
The truncation error is a ð2hÞ8
wk
ð8Þ
þ 2b h8
wk
ð8Þ
, which
6 80 7 2h2 8! h2 8!
6  12  35 136
 28 8
 12
1
7 128500k 6 ð8Þ
6 12 12 12 12 7 reduces to h wk showing sixth-order scheme.
61  28 0 28 1 7 8!
6 12 12 12 12 7 For implicit scheme k ¼ 112
. The unknown constants on the R.H.S.
6 7
6  12
1
 28 0 28 1 7 are related as a ¼ 3 ð3  12kÞ and b ¼ 13 ð4  4kÞ. This reduces Eq.
6 12 12 12 7 1

16
6 : : : 7
7 (2.5) to a sixth-order tridiagonal scheme as follows:
B¼ 6 7;
h6 : : : 7
6 7 1
6 7 2w00k1 þ11w00k þ2w00kþ1 ¼ ð3wkþ2 þ48wkþ1 102wk þ48wk1 þ3wk2 Þ; ð2:6Þ
6  12
1
 28 0 28 1
7 4h
2
6 12 12 12
7
6  12
1
 28 0 28 1 7
6 12 12 12 7 2077 
6 1
 12
8 28
 136 35 80 7 11w000 þ126w001 ¼11
h2 157
w0 2943 w1 þ573 w2 þ167 w3 18 w þ 57 w  131 w ;
11 4 110 5 1980 6
4 5
110 44 99
 
12 12 12 12 12 11w000 þ128w001 þ11w002 ¼ h2 512w0  64 w1 þ512w2 þ32w3 512w4 þ64w5 512w6 ;
128 585 141 459 9 81 3 3
3
 60
25 100
 300 25 197  3 
60 60 60 60 60 11w00N2 þ128w00N1 þ11w00N ¼128 512wN6 þ643
wN5 512
81
wN4 þ329
wN3 þ459 w 141 wN1 þ585 w ;
2 3 h2

512 N2 64 512 N

w0 00
126wN1 þ11wN 00
¼ 2 157 wN  110 wN1 þ 44 wN2 þ 99 wN3 11wN4 þ110wN5 1980wN6 :
11 2077
h
2943 573 167 18 57 131

6 w1 7 ð2:7Þ
6 7
6 7
6 w2 7 Similarly, writing the second-order derivative in the matrix
6 7
6 w 7 form as:
6 3 7
6 7
6 : 7 Cw00 ¼ Dw
w¼6
6 : 7:
7
6 7 2 32 00 3
6 7 11 126 w0
6 wN3 7
6 7 6 11 128 11 76 w00 7
6w 7 6 76 1 7
6 N2 7 6 76 00 7
6 7 6 2 11 2 76 w2 7
4 wN1 5 6 76 7
6 76 w00 7
wN 6 2 11 2 76 3 7
6 76 7
6 : : : 76 : 7
6 76 7
6 76 7
Cw00 ¼ 6 : : : 76 : 7
2.2. Spatial derivatives of second-order 6 76 7
6 76 7
6 : : : 76 : 7
6 76 00 7
The compact finite difference formula for the second-order 6 2 11 2 76 wN3 7
6 76 7
derivative was obtained [42] using the Taylor’s series expansion, 6 2 11 2 76 w00 7
6 76 N2 7
as the value of the concentration is known at a set of node points. 6 76 7
4 11 128 11 54 w00N1 5
Thus, the finite difference approximation of the derivative is
126 11 w00N
expressed as a linear combination of the given function values over
a uniform mesh. Hence, the second-order derivative w00k depends on and
th
the concentration values near the k node, as expressed in the
first-order derivative. The average at different spatial points are

3
R. Kaur, Shallu, V.K. Kukreja et al. Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

222847 32 3
157
 2943
10
573 167
4 9
18 57
10
 131
180
w0 Lðwk Þ ¼ wdk A1 Bwk þ lC 1 Dwk : ð3:7Þ
6 585
282 459
 81  34 76 w 7
6 36 6 76 1 7
6 4 4 4
76 7 This system of ODE’s is solved by the SSP-RK43 scheme, which
6 3
12  51 12 3 76 w2 7
6 4 2 4 76 7 integrates the temporal value from tj to t jþ1 level using the follow-
6 3
12  51 3 76 w 7
6 12 76 3 7 ing operations:
6 4 2 4
76 7
6 : : : 76 : 7
16 6
76
76
7
7 wð1Þ ¼ wj þ D2t Lðwj Þ;
Dw¼ 2 6 : : : 76 : 7:
h 6 76 7 w ð2Þ
¼ wð1Þ þ D2t Lðwð1Þ Þ;
6 : : : 76 : 7 ð3:8Þ
6 76 7 wð3Þ ¼ 23 wðjÞ þ 13 wð2Þ þ D6t Lðwð2Þ Þ;
6 76 7
6 3
12  51 12 3
76wN3 7
6 4 2 4 76 7 wjþ1 ¼ wð3Þ þ D2t Lðwð3Þ Þ:
6 3
12  51 12 3 76wN2 7
6 4 2 4 76 7
6 76 7
4  34 6  81
4
36 459
4
282 585
4
54wN1 5 By using the initial condition, wðx; tÞ at every required time
 131 57
18 167 573
 2943 22847
wN level can be calculated.
180 10 9 4 10 157

4. Stability analysis
3. Implementation of CFD6
The stability analysis of both the schemes is discussed by taking
The derivative term with respect to time in Eq. (1.1) is dis- w ¼ m (say), where m = max w, to linearize the nonlinear term in
cretized using the Crank-Nicolson and the SSP-RK43 schemes the entire process.
respectively. The implementation of both techniques is explained
hereunder. 4.1. Stability of M1

3.1. Crank Nicolson scheme (M1) Von-Neumann technique used in [53] is followed to establish
the stability analysis. Substituting the nonlinear term as constant
The Crank-Nicolson scheme is applied to Eq. (1.1) for the tem- in Eq. (1.1):
poral discretization as follows:
" # wnþ1 md nþ1 l nþ1 wn md n l n
nþ1 n  nþ1  þ w  wxx ¼  w þ w : ð4:1Þ
wnþ1  wn ðwd wx Þ þ ðwd wx Þ wxx þ wnxx Dt 2 x 2 Dt 2 x 2 xx
þ ¼l : ð3:1Þ
Dt 2 2 At any node point xk , substitute ðwx Þk ¼ 1h A1 Bwk and
1
The quasilinearization process, proposed by [52] is applied to ðwxx Þk ¼ h12 C Dwk .
linearize the nonlinear terms as follows: 
1 md 1 l
nþ1 n n n þ A B  2 C 1 D wnþ1
ðw wx Þ
d
þ ðw wx Þ ¼ ð1  dÞðw wx Þ þ dðw
d d d1
wx Þ w nþ1 Dt 2h 2h
k

þ ðw Þ d n
wnþ1 : ð3:2Þ
d
1 m 1 l
x ¼  A B þ 2 C 1 D wnk : ð4:2Þ
Dt 2h 2h
th
Substituting the above value in Eq. (3.1) and separating the n
Put wnk ¼ nn expðiklhÞ, where n is the amplitude, l is the mode
and ðn þ 1Þth time level terms: pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 number, h is the spatial step size and i ¼ 1. Then
n
1 d d1 n ðwd Þ nþ1 l nþ1 h i
þ ðw wx Þ wnþ1 þ wx  wxx wnk
Dt 2 2 2 A1 Bwnk ¼ 12
e2ilh e2ilh þ28eilh 28eilh
eilh þeilh þ3
h i ð4:3Þ
wn d  1 d n l wnk i sinð2lhÞþ28i sinðlhÞ
¼ þ ðw wx Þ þ wnxx : ð3:3Þ ¼ 12 2 cosðlhÞþ1
;
Dt 2 2
Substituting wx ¼ A1 Bw and wxx ¼ C 1 Dw, Eq. (3.3) reduces to: and
h i
l C 1 Dwnk ¼
wnk 3e2ilh þ48eilh 102þ48eilh þ3e2ilh
ðP þ A1 BQ  C 1 DÞwnþ1 ¼ R; ð3:4Þ 4 2eilh þ2eilh þ11
2
wnk
h i ð4:4Þ
3 cosð2lhÞþ48 cosðlhÞ102
where ¼ 4 2 cosðlhÞþ11
:
n
1 d d1 n ðwd Þ Substituting these values in Eq. (4.2), one gets:
P¼ þ ðw wx Þ ; Q ¼ ; R


Dt 2 2 i sinð2lhÞþ28i sinðlhÞ
þ 8hl2 3 cosð2lhÞþ48 cosðlhÞ102
d

wn d  1 d l
1
Dt
 24h
m
2 cosðlhÞþ1 2 cosðlhÞþ11
¼ þ
n
ðw wx Þ þ wnxx : ð3:5Þ n¼

: ð4:5Þ
Dt 2 2 1
þ 24h
m d i sinð2lhÞþ28i sinðlhÞ
 8hl2 3 cosð2lhÞþ48 cosðlhÞ102
Dt 2 cosðlhÞþ1 2 cosðlhÞþ11
Using the value of wðx; 0Þ from the initial condition, values at
higher time levels can be calculated. Clearly jnj 6 1, this fulfills the necessary condition for the
unconditional stability of the above technique.
3.2. SSP-RK43 scheme (M2)
4.2. Stability of M2
The modified Burgers’ equation (1.1) reduces to a system of
first-order ordinary differential equations by substituting the val- Substituting the values of spatial derivatives and taking the
ues of first and second-order derivatives as follows: nonlinear term as constant, Eq. (1.1) becomes:

dwk dw
¼ Lðwk Þ; k ¼ 0; 1; 2 . . . ; N: ð3:6Þ ¼ ðlC 1 D  md A1 BÞw: ð4:6Þ
dt dt
Here L represents the nonlinear differential operator defined as: The stability of the system depends on the eigenvalues of the
coefficient matrix G ¼ lC 1 D  md A1 B. The eigenvalues (gk ) of
4
R. Kaur, Shallu, V.K. Kukreja et al. Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

the matrix G should satisfy the following conditions [54]: Problem 1. Consider equation (1.1) with d ¼ 1 for the following
initial condition:
(i) Real gk : 2:78 < Dtgk < 0,
pffiffiffi pffiffiffi Wðx; 0Þ ¼ sinðpxÞ; 0 6 x 6 1; ð5:1Þ
(ii) Pure imaginary gk : 2 2 < Dt gk < 2 2,
(iii) Complex gk : Dt gk should lie in the region as given by [55]. and the homogenous boundary conditions:
Wð0; tÞ ¼ Wð1; tÞ ¼ 0; 0 6 t 6 T: ð5:2Þ
Fig. 1 represents the eigenvalues corresponding to Problem 1 to
4 considered in this paper. The eigenvalues are satisfying the con- The analytic solution was given by Cole [9] as follows:
dition (i) stated above for different values of N, hence the proposed P1 n2 p2 lt
n¼1 Bn e n sinðnpxÞ
technique is found to be unconditionally stable. Wðx; tÞ ¼ 2pl P 1 ; ð5:3Þ
B0 þ n¼1 Bn en2 p2 lt n cosðnpxÞ
where the Fourier coefficients are given below:
5. Numerical examples R1
B0 ¼ 0
exp ½1cosð
2pl
pxÞ
dx;
R1 ð5:4Þ
The accuracy of the compact finite difference scheme is mea- Bn ¼ 0
exp ½1cosð
2pl
pxÞ
cosðnpxÞdx ðn ¼ 1; 2; 3; . . .Þ:
sured using the L1 and L2 error norms, which are defined below:
Table 1, shows the comparison of the numerical and analytic
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi solution with h ¼ 0:025; Dt ¼ 0:001, and l ¼ 0:1. The absolute
u N
u X error is calculated corresponding to both the methods. The table
L1 ¼ max jW k  wk j; L2 ¼ th ðW k  wk Þ2 : indicates that the proposed methods are more accurate than the
06k6N
k¼0
finite element method [11] and the MLSPH [19]. In Table 2, the
numerical and the analytic solutions are computed with
where W k and wk denotes the exact and the numerical solutions h ¼ 0:0250; Dt ¼ 0:001, and l ¼ 0:01. The CFDM6 gives more accu-
respectively at the node points xk , for some fixed time. rate results than [13] and the proposed techniques are computa-

Fig. 1. Eigenvalues for different values of N.

5
R. Kaur, Shallu, V.K. Kukreja et al. Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 1
Comparison of numerical and analytical solution of Problem 1 for h ¼ 0:025; Dt ¼ 0:001 and l ¼ 0:1.
x t Analytical Numerical Solution Absolute Error
Solution FEM [11] MLSPH [19] M1 M2 M1 CPU Time (s) M2 CPU Time (s)
0.25 0.4 0.30889 0.31429 0.30860 0.30890 0.30889 6.8029E06 0.395927 1.6009E08 0.400131
0.6 0.24074 0.24373 0.24050 0.24077 0.24074 3.2609E05 0.415772 1.3000E08 0.465245
0.8 0.19568 0.19758 0.19547 0.19568 0.19568 4.5231E06 0.522805 2.2251E08 0.583847
1.0 0.16256 0.16391 0.16238 0.16256 0.16256 3.5381E06 0.561615 7.0639E08 0.707590
3.0 0.02720 0.02743 0.02714 0.02720 0.02720 4.5585E07 1.414861 3.8580E08 1.604462
0.50 0.4 0.56963 0.57636 0.56909 0.56965 0.56963 2.1219E05 – 9.1600E08 –
0.6 0.44721 0.45169 0.44670 0.44727 0.44720 6.5699E05 – 2.3992E07 -
0.8 0.35924 0.36245 0.35879 0.35924 0.35924 1.0189E05 – 3.7436E07 -
1.0 0.29192 0.29437 0.29151 0.29192 0.29192 7.2278E06 – 4.1226E07 -
3.0 0.04021 0.04057 0.04011 0.04020 0.04020 7.0789E07 – 5.2870E08 -
0.75 0.4 0.62544 0.62592 0.62495 0.62547 0.62544 3.9728E05 – 1.2615E06 -
0.6 0.48721 0.49034 0.48660 0.48730 0.48721 8.8086E05 – 1.3976E06 -
0.8 0.37392 0.37713 0.37335 0.37393 0.37392 1.4746E05 – 9.9686E07 -
1.0 0.28747 0.29016 0.28698 0.28748 0.28747 9.4095E06 – 6.2012E07 -
3.0 0.02977 0.01334 0.02970 0.02977 0.02977 5.5544E07 – 3.4167E08 -

Table 2
Comparison of numerical and analytical solution of Problem 1 for l ¼ 0:01.
x t Analytical Numerical Solution Absolute error
Solution [13] MLSPH [19] M1 M2 M1 M2
h ¼ 0:0125 h ¼ 0:0125 h ¼ 0:0250 h ¼ 0:0250
Dt ¼ 0:0001 Dt ¼ 0:0001 Dt ¼ 0:001 Dt ¼ 0:001
0.25 0.4 0.34191 0.34193 0.34190 0.34191 0.34191 2.43E06 8.21E10
0.6 0.26896 0.26898 0.26895 0.26899 0.26896 3.01E05 5.19E10
0.8 0.22148 0.22149 0.22147 0.22148 0.22148 8.90E07 3.10E10
1.0 0.18819 0.18820 0.18818 0.18819 0.18819 6.24E07 1.95E10
3.0 0.07511 0.07512 0.07511 0.07511 0.07511 1.01E07 4.15E11
0.50 0.4 0.66071 0.66076 0.66068 0.66072 0.66071 1.74E05 2.72E08
0.6 0.52942 0.52945 0.52939 0.52948 0.52942 6.21E05 6.84E09
0.8 0.43914 0.43916 0.43912 0.43914 0.43914 4.53E06 9.77E10
1.0 0.37442 0.37443 0.37440 0.37442 0.37442 2.74E06 1.79E09
3.0 0.15018 0.15018 0.15017 0.15018 0.15018 2.58E07 1.24E08
0.75 0.4 0.91026 0.91046 0.91024 0.91034 0.91027 8.47E05 6.20E06
0.6 0.76724 0.76733 0.76721 0.76734 0.76724 9.69E05 4.83E06
0.8 0.64740 0.64744 0.64737 0.64741 0.64739 1.60E05 3.32E07
1.0 0.55605 0.55608 0.55602 0.55606 0.55605 9.99E06 1.04E06
3.0 0.22481 0.22484 0.22480 0.22481 0.22481 5.71E06 5.19E06

Fig. 2. Numerical solution of Problem 1 with N ¼ 100; Dt ¼ 0:001 and l ¼ 0:01.

6
R. Kaur, Shallu, V.K. Kukreja et al. Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

2 2 2 2
Table 3 sinðpxÞep l t þ sinð2pxÞe4p l t
L1 ; L2 errors and order of convergence of Problem 1 for l ¼ 0:1 and t ¼ 0:4. Wðx; tÞ ¼ 2lp : ð5:7Þ
4 þ cosðpxÞep2 l2 t þ 2 cosð2pxÞe4p2 l2 t
N L1 Order L2 Order
The Table 4, gives the computation of the L1 and L2 error norms
10 6.8599E03 – 9.0358E04 –
20 1.8920E04 5.1802 4.7155E05 4.6040
with h ¼ 0:025; Dt ¼ 0:001, and t ¼ 0:1 for different values of l. A
40 1.0005E05 4.2346 1.3296E06 5.1483 comparison shows that the proposed techniques are better than
60 9.6232E07 5.7748 1.5539E07 5.2944 the modified cubic B-spline collocation method [15] and fourth-
80 1.8393E07 5.7522 2.9611E08 5.7626 order compact FDM [20]. In Table 5, the L1 and L2 error norms
are calculated and compared for t ¼ 1. Similarly Table 6 and
Table 7, show that the results are better than the modified cubic
B-spline differential quadrature method [16]. Fig. 3(a) gives the
tionally efficient because fewer mesh points are taken while com- 2D plot at different time levels and Fig. 3(b) represents 3D plot
puting the results. In Table 3, the order of convergence is calculated at t ¼ 3 with N ¼ 100; Dt ¼ 0:001, and l ¼ 0:01.
numerically, which agrees with the theoretical results. Fig. 2(a)
gives the 2D plot at different time levels and Fig. 2(b) represents
the 3D plot of the numerical solution with N ¼ 100; Dt ¼ 0:001, Problem 3. Consider Eq. (1.1) with d ¼ 2 along with the initial
and l ¼ 0:01. condition:
x
Wðx; 1Þ ¼ ; 0 6 x 6 1; ð5:8Þ
Problem 2. Consider Eq. (1.1) with d ¼ 1, along with the initial 1 þ ð1=cÞex2 =4l
condition: and the boundary conditions:
sinðpxÞ þ sinð2pxÞ Wð0; tÞ ¼ Wð1; tÞ ¼ 0; 1 6 t 6 T; ð5:9Þ
Wðx; 0Þ ¼ 2lp ; 0 6 x 6 2; ð5:5Þ
4 þ cosðpxÞ þ 2 cosð2pxÞ
where c ¼ 0:5 is a constant. The analytic shock-like solution was
and the homogenous boundary conditions: given by Harris [56] as follows:
Wð0; tÞ ¼ Wð2; tÞ ¼ 0; 0 6 t 6 T: ð5:6Þ x=t
Wðx; tÞ ¼ pffiffi ; 0 6 x 6 1: ð5:10Þ
The exact solution is given as: 1 þ ð t =cÞex2 =4l

Table 4
Comparison of L1 and L2 errors of Problem 2 for h ¼ 0:025; Dt ¼ 0:001 and t ¼ 0:1.

[15] [20] M1 M2
l L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2

102 4.41E03 3.55E03 1.72E03 1.12E03 7.99E04 6.94E04 7.99E04 6.94E04

103 4.60E05 3.72E05 1.88E05 1.20E05 8.31E06 7.18E06 8.31E06 7.18E06
104 4.62E07 3.74E07 1.89E07 1.21E07 8.35E08 7.20E08 8.35E08 7.20E08
105 4.62E09 3.74E09 1.90E09 1.21E09 8.35E10 7.20E10 8.35E10 7.20E10
106 4.60E11 3.70E11 1.90E11 1.21E11 8.35E12 7.20E12 8.35E12 7.20E12

Table 5
Comparison of L1 and L2 errors of Problem 2 for h ¼ 0:025; Dt ¼ 0:001 and t ¼ 1.

[15] [20] M1 M2
l L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2

102 3.13E02 2.66E02 1.02E02 7.61E03 6.26E03 5.59E03 6.26E03 5.59E03

103 4.45E04 3.59E04 1.73E04 1.13E04 8.07E05 7.00E05 8.07E05 7.00E05
104 4.61E06 3.72E06 1.88E06 1.20E06 8.32E07 7.18E07 8.32E07 7.18E07
105 4.62E08 3.74E08 1.89E08 1.21E08 8.35E09 7.20E09 8.35E09 7.20E09
106 4.60E10 3.70E10 1.90E10 1.21E10 8.35E11 7.21E11 8.35E11 7.21E11

Table 6
Comparison of L1 and L2 errors of Problem 2 for h ¼ 0:1; Dt ¼ 0:01 and t ¼ 0:1.

[16] [20] M1 M2
l L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2
2 3.98E03 3.41E03 1.35E03 1.11E03 7.99E04 6.91E04 7.99E04 6.91E04
10
103 4.09E05 3.55E05 1.42E05 1.18E05 8.31E06 7.15E06 8.31E06 7.15E06
104 4.11E07 3.56E07 1.43E07 1.19E07 8.34E08 7.17E08 8.34E08 7.17E08
105 4.11E09 3.56E09 1.43E09 1.19E09 8.35E10 7.18E10 8.35E10 7.18E10
106 4.10E11 3.60E11 1.43E11 1.19E11 8.35E12 7.18E12 8.35E12 7.18E12

7
R. Kaur, Shallu, V.K. Kukreja et al. Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 3. Numerical solution of Problem 2 with N ¼ 100; Dt ¼ 0:001 and l ¼ 0:01.

Table 7
Comparison of L1 and L2 errors of Problem 2 for h ¼ 0:1; Dt ¼ 0:01 and t ¼ 1.

[16] [20] M1 M2
l L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2
2 2.92E02 2.63E02 9.50E03 7.60E03 6.20E03 5.58E03 6.20E03 5.58E03
10
103 3.93E04 3.45E04 1.36E04 1.12E04 8.06E05 6.98E05 8.06E05 6.98E05
104 4.09E06 3.55E06 1.42E06 1.18E06 8.32E07 7.16E07 8.32E07 7.16E07
105 4.11E08 3.56E08 1.43E08 1.19E08 8.35E09 7.18E09 8.35E09 7.18E09
106 4.10E10 3.60E10 1.43E10 1.19E10 8.35E11 7.18E11 8.35E11 7.18E11

Table 8
Comparison of L2 ð104 Þ and L1 ð104 Þ error norms of Problem 3 for l ¼ 0:01 and Dt ¼ 0:01.
h L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2
t=2 t=2 t=4 t=4 t=6 t=6 t = 10 t = 10
M1(Dt ¼ 0:1) 1/15 8.0570 3.8040 5.9122 3.1365 5.2579 3.3686 12.8125 5.9274
CPU Time (s) 0.027843 0.029472 0.032293 0.041048
M2(Dt ¼ 0:1) 1/15 8.3023 3.7124 6.1111 3.2557 5.2579 3.4689 12.8125 5.9775
CPU Time (s) 0.031015 0.037837 0.041940 0.051552
Ramadan [25] 1/50 17.0309 7.9043 9.9645 5.5768 7.6105 5.1672 18.0239 8.0026
Ramadan [26] 1/200 12.1698 5.2308 9.3136 5.1625 7.2249 4.9024 12.8125 6.4008
Saka [28] 1/200 8.1680 3.7932 6.0537 3.1724 5.2579 3.2602 12.8125 5.4701
Irk [29] 1/200 8.2934 3.8489 – – – – 12.8127 5.4826
Bratsos [31] 1/1000 8.1669 3.7920 6.0556 3.1548 4.6499 2.7314 3.0183 1.9337
Roshan [32] 1/200 8.1766 3.7552 6.0806 3.1675 4.6752 2.7492 3.0286 1.9391
Oruc [34] 1/16 7.2890 2.9252 – – 4.5606 2.4311 3.2374 2.2321
Bashan [35] 1/50 14.0612 6.8832 10.4704 5.5189 8.1474 5.3600 17.4258 8.0013
Nair [37] 1/200 7.5730 3.4739 4.9557 2.6712 5.4529 2.8548 13.0661 5.2560
Nagaveni [38] 1/32 8.40397 3.8398 6.2512 3.3166 4.8181 3.3385 12.2181 5.4652

Table 9
Comparison of L2 ð104 Þ and L1 ð104 Þ error norms of Problem 3 for l ¼ 0:005 and Dt ¼ 0:01.
h L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2
t=2 t=2 t=4 t=4 t=6 t=6 t = 10 t = 10
M1(Dt ¼ 0:1) 1/15 5.3361 2.2394 4.3296 1.9337 3.2992 1.6988 2.3352 1.4488
M2(Dt ¼ 0:1) 1/15 5.5783 2.1890 4.5395 2.0716 3.5503 1.8323 2.4698 1.5452
Ramadan [26] 1/200 7.2264 2.5786 5.5445 2.5277 4.3082 2.2569 3.0006 1.8735
Saka [28] 1/200 5.7998 2.2651 4.2940 1.8816 3.2897 1.6460 2.2885 1.3959
Irk [29] 1/200 5.8623 2.2890 – – – – 2.3019 1.4042
Bratsos [31] 1/1000 5.8027 2.2653 4.2949 1.8819 3.2993 1.6461 2.2874 1.3524
Roshan [32] 1/200 5.8081 2.2332 4.3212 1.8934 3.3260 1.6635 2.3074 1.3659
Oruc [34] 1/16 5.4059 1.9508 – – 3.2340 1.6489 2.2598 1.4055
Nair [37] 1/200 5.5271 2.0768 3.5334 1.6018 2.7470 1.3752 1.8828 1.1522

8
R. Kaur, Shallu, V.K. Kukreja et al. Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 10
Comparison of L2 ð104 Þ and L1 ð104 Þ error norms of Problem 3 for l ¼ 0:001 and Dt ¼ 0:01.
h L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2
t=2 t=2 t=4 t=4 t=6 t=6 t = 10 t = 10
M1(Dt ¼ 0:1) 1/30 2.7164 0.6855 1.9898 0.5863 1.5358 0.5168 1.0648 0.4242
M2(Dt ¼ 0:1) 1/30 2.7764 0.6709 2.0705 0.6135 1.5984 0.5461 1.1119 0.4466
Ramadan [25] 1/200 8.1852 1.8355 3.5635 1.1441 2.1348 0.8142 1.3943 0.5512
Ramadan [26] 1/200 2.7967 0.6703 2.1856 0.6670 1.7176 0.6046 1.2129 0.5010
Saka [28] 1/200 2.6094 0.6811 1.9288 0.5652 1.4810 0.4942 1.0264 0.4067
Irk [29] 1/200 2.6233 0.6843 – – – – 1.0295 0.4080
Bratsos [31] 1/1000 2.6109 0.6817 1.9289 0.5652 1.4809 0.4942 1.0263 0.4067
Roshan [32] 1/200 2.6186 0.6607 1.9577 0.5740 1.5090 0.5063 1.0470 0.4160
Bashan [35] 1/166 4.5714 1.2723 3.3320 0.9857 2.5468 0.8407 1.7593 0.6860
Nair [37] 1/200 2.5150 0.6335 1.8969 0.5266 1.4114 0.4476 1.0386 0.3664
Nagaveni [38] 1/128 2.6338 0.6790 1.9596 0.5792 1.4897 0.5055 1.0272 0.4140

Fig. 4. Comparison of numerical and analytic shock-like solution of Problem 3 with h ¼ 0:01.

9
R. Kaur, Shallu, V.K. Kukreja et al. Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 5. Surface plot of numerical solution of Problem 3 with h ¼ 0:01.

A comparison of the L2 and L1 error norms with l = 0.01, 0.005 Wðx; tÞ ¼ edt g 0 ðx; tÞ þ e4dt g 1 ðx; tÞ þ e7dt g 2 ðx; tÞ þ . . . ð5:13Þ
and 0.001 is represented in Tables 8–10 respectively for t 2 ½1; 10.
The results are matched with the previous work such as septic B- where
spline [25], quintic B-spline [26–28], sextic B-spline collocation  
g 0 ðx; tÞ ¼ D1 sin plx ;
methods [29], fourth-order finite difference scheme [31], Petrov-    
g 1 ðx; tÞ ¼ E1 t sin 2pl x þ E2 sin 4pl x ;
Galerkin method [32], quintic B-spline differential quadrature 2px      
method [35], quintic trigonometric B-spline collocation method g 2 ðx; tÞ ¼ f 1 ðtÞ sin l þ f 2 ðtÞ sin 3pl x þ f 3 ðtÞ sin 5pl x þ f 4 ðtÞ sin 7pl x ;
[37] and Haar wavelet collocation method [38].
Fig. 4 compares the numerical and analytic shock-like solution with
for l ¼ 0:01; 0:001; 0:0005, and 0:0001 respectively. Fig. 5 gives the
D41 p D4 l 2
surface plot of numerical solution for different values of coefficient E1 ¼  4l
;E2 ¼ 96lp
1
; d ¼ lp l2
;
of viscosity. Initially, there is a shock in the solution, but as the h i h i
l2 l2 H 1 l2 l2 H 2
f 1 ðtÞ ¼  6lp2 H1 t þ G1 þ 6lp2 ; f 2 ðtÞ ¼ 2lp 2 H 2 t þ G2  2lp2 ;
time increases, the amplitude of the solution decreases and attains h i
2
a steady-state. It can be seen from different surface plots that for 2 l2 G4
f 3 ðtÞ ¼ 18llp2 H3 t þ G3  18l lpH3
2 ; f 4 ðtÞ ¼ 42lp2 ;
smaller values of l, decay is more rapid, which means that the
D31 E1 p 9D31 E1 p 5D31 E1 p
shock wave solution is proportional to l. H1 ¼ 4l
; H2 ¼  8l
; H3 ¼ 8l
;
D31 E2 p 9D31 E2 p 15D31 E2 p 7D31 E2 p
G1 ¼  8l
; G2 ¼ 8l
; G3 ¼  8l
; G4 ¼ 8l
:
Problem 4. Consider Eq. (1.1) with d ¼ 3, for the initial condition:

px Here D1 is a constant with value 0.365366. The numerical
Wðx; 0Þ ¼ D sin ; 0 6 x 6 1; ð5:11Þ results are given in Table 11 for different values of time
l
t ¼ 100; 150; 200; 250; 300; 350; 400, and 450 with l ¼ 0:005. The
with D ¼ 1; l ¼ p and the boundary conditions:
L2 and L1 error norms are calculated with very less number of
Wð0; tÞ ¼ 0; Wð1; tÞ ¼ 0; 0 6 t 6 T: ð5:12Þ mesh points for Dt ¼ 0:1, which makes the technique computa-
tionally efficient. Fig. 6 gives a comparison of the numerical and
The asymptotic solution for this case is given by Sachdev et al.
asymptotic solution with l ¼ 0:0005 and N ¼ 100. Fig. 7 repre-
[23] as follows:
sents the surface plot of numerical solution with
l ¼ 0:005; Dt ¼ 0:01, and N ¼ 300. see Table 11

10
R. Kaur, Shallu, V.K. Kukreja et al. Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 11
Comparison of L2 and L1 error norms of Problem 4 for l ¼ 0:005 and Dt ¼ 0:01.
h t 100 150 200 250
M1 (Dt ¼ 0:1) 1/5 L1 3.1456E02 7.0585E03 2.4010E03 8.7716E04
L2 3.1871E02 6.4008E03 2.4380E03 9.4196E04
CPU Time (s) 1.085038 1.714826 2.190123 2.741380
M2 (Dt ¼ 0:1) 1/5 L1 3.1681E02 6.8578E03 2.2473E03 9.4862E04
L2 3.1898E02 6.3202E03 2.3589E03 9.9112E04
CPU Time (s) 1.586116 2.349116 3.024394 3.724374
Duan [27] 1/100 L1 – 5.1720E03 1.6710E03 1.4000E03
L2 – 3.2270E03 9.9120E04 5.0310E04
Bratsos [31] 1/1000 L1 3.3976E02 6.8400E03 2.0416E03 8.3351E04
L2 3.2761E02 6.1258E03 2.2273E03 9.1238E04
Roshan [32] 1/200 L1 – 6.8454E03 2.0459E03 8.3944E04
L2 – 6.1281E03 2.2295E03 9.1449E04
Oruc [34] 1/128 L1 3.4523E02 6.7128E03 1.8567E03 6.4929E04
L2 3.3032E02 6.0539E03 2.0656E03 7.6872E04
Nair [37] 1/100 L1 3.3567E02 6.5006E03 1.6743E03 6.1725E04
L2 3.3024E02 6.0386E03 2.0113E03 7.5867E04
h t 300 350 400 450
M1 (Dt ¼ 0:1) 1/5 L1 5.3898E04 3.2631E04 2.2719E04 1.7371E04
L2 5.5538E04 3.6620E04 2.7860E04 2.2323E04
CPU Time (s) 3.263090 3.758798 4.265303 4.846037
M2 (Dt ¼ 0:1) 1/5 L1 4.6982E04 2.7073E04 1.8269E04 1.3686E04
L2 4.8099E04 2.9571E04 2.1892E04 1.7528E04
CPU Time (s) 4.594521 5.284967 6.072412 6.810872
Duan [27] 1/100 L1 1.4520E03 1.4880E03 1.5130E03 1.5310E03
L2 5.9390E04 6.9400E03 7.5670E04 7.9900E04
Bratsos [31] 1/1000 L1 3.9559E04 2.1860E04 1.4160E04 1.0361E04
L2 4.1341E04 2.3070E04 1.6168E04 1.2836E04
Roshan [32] 1/200 L1 3.9991E04 2.2194E04 1.4427E04 1.0583E04
L2 4.1661E04 2.3455E04 1.6539E04 1.3152E04
Oruc [34] 1/128 L1 2.4053E04 9.0748E05 3.5684E05 1.5175E05
L2 2.8506E04 1.0561E04 3.9581E05 1.5662E05
Nair [37] 1/100 L1 2.2159E04 8.3532E05 3.0005E05 1.0058E05
L2 2.7512E04 1.0164E04 3.7955E05 1.1487E05

Fig. 6. Comparison of numerical and asymptotic solution of Problem 4 with l ¼ 0:0005 and N ¼ 100.
11
R. Kaur, Shallu, V.K. Kukreja et al. Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 7. Surface plot of numerical solution of Problem 4 with l ¼ 0:005; Dt ¼ 0:01 and N ¼ 300.

6. Conclusion Declaration of Competing Interest

Sixth-order compact FDM was successfully applied to the mod-
ified Burgers’ equation with two different time discretization
schemes. The Crank-Nicolson scheme with CFD6 was uncondition-
ally stable by von-Neumann analysis. The stability of the SSP-RK43
scheme with CFD6 was carried out using the concept of eigenval-
ues. A number of problems were solved to show the applicability
of the proposed techniques. From the computation of results and
errors, both the techniques were found to be more accurate and
computationally efficient than many existing methods.
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgment
Ms. Shallu is thankful to CSIR New Delhi for providing financial
assistance in the form of JRF with File No. 09/797(0016)/2018-
EMR-I.

12
R. Kaur, Shallu, V.K. Kukreja et al. Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

References [31] Bratsos AG. A fourth-order numerical scheme for solving the modified Burgers
equation. Comput Math Appl 2010;60(5):1393–400.
[32] Roshan T, Bhamra KS. Numerical solutions of the modified Burgers’ equation
[1] Bateman H. Some recent researches on the motion of fluids. Mon Weather Rev
by Petrov-Galerkin method. Appl Math Comput 2011;218(7):3673–9.
1915;43:163–70.
[33] Karakoc SBG, Bashan A, Geyikli T. Two different methods for numerical
[2] Burgers JM. Mathematical examples illustrating relations occurring in the
solution of the modified Burgers’ equation. Sci World J 2014:780269.
theory of turbulent fluid motion. Trans Roy Netherlands Acad Arts Sci
[34] Oruc O, Bulut F, Esen A. A Haar wavelet-finite difference hybrid method for the
1939;17:1–53.
numerical solution of the modified Burgers’ equation. J Math Chem 2015;53
[3] Nariboli GA, Lin WC. A new type of Burgers’ equation. Z Angew Math Mech
(7):1592–607.
1973;53:505–10.
[35] Bashan A, Karakoc SBG, Geyikli T. B-spline differential quadrature method for
[4] Sugimoto N, Yamane Y, Kakutani T. Torsional shock waves in a viscoelastic rod.
the modified Burgers’ equation. J Sci Eng 2015;12(1):1–13.
J Appl Mech 1984;51(3):595–601.
[36] Kutluay S, Ucar Y, Yagmurlu NM. Numerical solutions of the modified Burgers’
[5] Lardner RW, Trehan SK. Nonlinear waves in a low-density plasma with a
equation by a cubic B-spline collocation method. Bull Malaysian Math Sci Soc
strong magnetic field. Astrophys Space Sci 1991;180:93–104.
2016;39(4):1603–14.
[6] Takaci A. Mathematical and simulation models of traffic flow. Proc Appl Math
[37] Nair LC, Awasthi A. Quintic trigonometric spline based numerical scheme for
Mech 2005;5:633–4.
nonlinear modified Burgers’ equation. Numer Methods Partial Different Eqs
[7] Karabutov AA, Lapshin EA, Rudenko OV. Interaction between light waves and
2019;35(3):1269–89.
sound under acoustic nonlinearity conditions, Soviet Physics. J Exp Theor Phys
[38] Nagaveni K. A new numerical approach for the solution of the modified
1976;44(1):58–63.
Burgers’ equation using Haar wavelet collocation method. Glob J Pure Appl
[8] Lighthill M.J. Viscosity effects in sound waves of finite amplitude. Surv Mech
Math 2019;15:829–39.
1956;250–351.
[39] Ucar Y, Yagmurlu NM, Baphan A. Numerical solutions and stability analysis of
[9] Cole JD. On a quasi-linear parabolic equation occurring in aerodynamics. Q
modified Burgers’ equation via modified cubic B-splines differential
Appl Math 1951;9(3):225–36.
quadrature methods. Sigma J Eng Nat Sci 2019;37:129–42.
[10] Hopf E. The partial differential equation U t þ UU x ¼ lU xx . Commun Pure Appl
[40] Shallu, Kukreja VK. An improvised collocation algorithm with specific end
Math 1950;3:201–30.
conditions for solving modified Burgers equation. Numer Methods Partial
[11] Ozis T, Aksan EN, Ozdes A. A finite element approach for solution of Burgers’
Differen Eqs 2021;37(1):874–96.
equation. Appl Math Comput 2003;139(2–3):417–28.
[41] Abdi NH, Aminikhah AH, Sheikhani J, Alavi, Taghipour M. An efficient explicit
[12] Pandey K, Verma L, Verma AK. On a finite difference scheme for Burgers’
decoupled group method for solving two-dimensional fractional Burger’s
equation. Appl Math Comput 2009;215(6):2206–14.
equation and its convergence analysis. Adv Math Phys 2021;2021.
[13] Asaithambi A. Numerical solution of the Burgers’ equation by automatic
[42] Lele SK. Compact finite difference schemes with spectral-like resolution. J
differentiation. Appl Math Comput 2010;216(9):2700–8.
Comput Phys 1992;103(1):16–42.
[14] Huang PZ, Abduwali A. The modified local Crank-Nicolson method for one and
[43] Gaitonde DV, Visbal MR. High-order schemes for Navier-Stokes equations:
two-dimensional Burgers’ equation. Comput Math Appl 2010;59(8):2452–63.
Algorithm and implementation into FDL3DI (Technical Report No. AFRL-VA-
[15] Mittal RC, Jain RK. Numerical solutions of nonlinear Burgers’ equation with
WP-TR-1998-3060). Air Force Research Lab Wright-Patterson AFB; 1998.
modified cubic B-splines collocation method. Appl Math Comput 2012;218
[44] Yap WJ, Waqar A, Mawlood MK, Omar AA. A comparison of higher-order
(15):7839–55.
compact finite difference schemes through Burgers’ equation. Int J Comput Eng
[16] Arora G, Singh BK. Numerical solution of Burgers’ equation with modified
Sci 2004;5(1):59–80.
cubic B-spline differential quadrature method. Appl Math Comput
[45] Sutmann G. Compact finite difference schemes of sixth order for the Helmholtz
2013;224:166–77.
equation. J Comput Appl Math 2007;203(1):15–31.
[17] Inan B, Bahadir AR. A numerical solution of the Burgers’ equation using a
[46] Wang Y, Zhang J. Sixth order compact scheme combined with multigrid
Crank-Nicolson exponential finite difference method. J Math Comput Sci
method and extrapolation technique for 2D Poisson equation. J Comput Phys
2014;4(5):849–60.
2009;228:137–46.
[18] Ganaie IA, Kukreja VK. Numerical solution of Burgers’ equation by cubic
[47] Wu T, Xu R. An optimal compact sixth-order finite difference scheme for the
Hermite collocation method. Appl Math Comput 2014;237:571–81.
Helmholtz equation. Comput Math Appl 2018;75(7):2520–37.
[19] Fu F, Li J, Lin J, Guan Y, Gao F, Zhang C. Moving least squares particle
[48] Singh BK, Arora G, Kumar P. A note on solving the fourth-order Kuramoto-
hydrodynamics method for Burgers’ equation. Appl Math Comput
Sivashinsky equation by the compact finite difference scheme. Ain Shams Eng J
2019;356:362–78.
2018;9(4):1581–9.
[20] Yang XJ, Ge Y, Zhang L. A class of high-order compact difference schemes for
[49] Abdi N, Aminikhah H, Sheikhani AHR, Alavi J. A high-order compact alternating
solving the Burgers’ equations. Appl Math Comput 2019;358:394–417.
direction implicit method for solving the 3D time-fractional diffusion equation
[21] Gowrisankar S, Natesan S. An efficient robust numerical method for singularly
with the Caputo-Fabrizio operator. Math Sci 2020;14(4):359–73.
perturbed Burgers’ equation. Appl Math Comput 2019;346:385–94.
[50] Taghipour M, Aminikhah H. A new compact alternating direction implicit
[22] Nimmo JJC, Crighton DG. Backlund transformations for nonlinear parabolic
method for solving two dimensional time fractional diffusion equation with
equations: the general results. Proc Roy Soc Lond A Math Phys Sci 1982;384
Caputo-Fabrizio derivative. Filomat 2020;34(11):3609–26.
(1787):381–401.
[51] Abdi N, Aminikhah H, Sheikhani AR. High-order rotated grid point iterative
[23] Sachdev PL, Rao CS. N-wave solution of modified Burgers’ equation. Appl Math
method for solving 2D time fractional telegraph equation and its convergence
Lett 2000;13:1–6.
analysis. Comput Appl Math 2021;40(2):1–26.
[24] Sachdev PL, Rao CS, Enflo BO. Large-time asymptotics for periodic solutions of
[52] Bellman RE, Kalaba RE. Quasilinearization and Nonlinear Boundary Value
the modified Burgers’ equation. Stud Appl Math 2005;114:307–23.
Problems. New York: American Elsevier Publishing Co., Inc.; 1965.
[25] Ramadan MA, El-Danaf TS, Alaal FEA. A numerical solution of the Burgers’
[53] Li J. High-order finite difference schemes for differential equations containing
equation using septic B-splines. Chaos Solitons Fract 2005;26(4):1249–58.
higher derivatives. Appl Math Comput 2005;171(2):1157–76.
[26] Ramadan MA, El-Danaf TS. Numerical treatment for the modified Burgers’
[54] Jain MK. Numerical Solution of Differential Equations. Wiley Eastern Limited;
equation. Math Comput Simul 2005;70(2):90–8.
1984.
[27] Duan Y, Liu R, Jiang Y. Lattice Boltzmann model for the modified Burgers’
[55] Kubatko EJ, Yeager BA, Ketcheson DI. Optimal strong stability preserving
equation. Appl Math Comput 2008;202(2):489–97.
Runge-Kutta time discretizations for discontinuous Galerkin methods. J Sci
[28] Saka B, Dag I. A numerical study of the Burgers’ equation. J Franklin Inst
Comput 2014;60:313–44.
2008;345(4):328–48.
[56] Harris SE. Sonic shocks governed by the modified Burgers’ equation. Eur J Appl
[29] Irk D. Sextic B-spline collocation method for the modified Burgers’ equation.
Math 1996;7(2):201–22.
Kybernetes 2009;38(9):1599–620.
[30] Inan IE, Ugurlu Y. Exp-function method for the exact solutions of fifth order
KdV equation and modified Burgers’ equation. Appl Math Comput 2010;217
(4):1294–9.

13
R. Kaur, Shallu, V.K. Kukreja et al.
Ravneet Kaur is pursuing her Ph.D. from Sant Longowal
Institute of Engineering and Technology. She qualified
GATE in 2018. She is an Associate Professor in the
Department of Mathematics, Rayat & Bahra University,
Mohali. Her area of interests are numerical solutions of
ordinary and partial differential equations using the
finite difference techniques.
Shallu is pursuing her Ph.D. from Sant Longowal Insti-
tute of Engineering and Technology. She qualified GATE
in 2017 and NET as well as JRF-CSIR in Dec 2016 with
AIR-23. Her area of interests are numerical solutions of
ordinary and partial differential equations.
Vijay Kumar Kukreja is a Professor in the Department
of Mathematics, Sant Longowal Institute of Engineering
& Technology, Longowal, India. His research interests
include mathematical modelling, industrial mathemat-
ics, numerical solution of ODEs, PDEs and fractional
PDEs using splines and Hermite collocation methods.
14
Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
Nabendra Parumasur is a Senior Lecturer in the School
of Mathematics, Statistics & Computer Science, Univer-
sity of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. His research inter-
ests are in numerical analysis with emphasis on
spectral/pseudo-spectral/collocation methods for ODEs,
PDEs and fractional PDEs derived from mathematical
physis and engineering applications.
Pravin Singh is a Senior Lecturer in the School of
Mathematics, Statistics & Computer Science, University
of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. His research interests
are in Approximation Theory and Numerical Analysis.