Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

12 views

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- Complete Solutions Manual for -
- Numerical Method
- Patidar Nonstandard Finite Difference Methods
- Process Modelling and Simulation
- Iterative Refinement for Linear Systems and LAPACK 10[1].1.1.129
- Numerical Solution Of Delay Differential Equations Using The Adomian Decomposition Method(ADM)
- Machine Learning
- Matlab Tutorial
- UT Dallas Syllabus for phys3311.501.07f taught by (jhuffman)
- tmp9A5E
- Cfd Lecture
- CONM TechMax Syllabus
- Paper 24-A Posteriori Error Estimator for Mixed Approximation of the Navier-Stokes Equations With the C a b c Boundary Condition
- PDE-Steebs-partial.pdf
- CJR DE II
- Errors in Numerical Analysis PDF
- Eml 5060 - Syllabus Fall 2016 (8)
- Differential Equations numerical analysis
- OGHENEFEJIRO cv.docx
- 10.1016@j.camwa.2008.10.067

You are on page 1of 80

Differential Equations

CHUN-HAO TENG

Department of Applied Mathematics

National Chiao Tung University

Hsin-Chu, Taiwan

1

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Outline

1

Introduction

Numerical Partial Differential Equations

2

Well-posed Problems

Well-posedness

3

Numerical Framework

Consistency, Stability and Convergence

4

Phase Error Analysis

Low-Order or High-Order Method

5

Penalty Method

Energy estimate of problems involving boundary

conditions

Strongly and Weakly impositions of boundary conditions

6

SBP Difference

Basic concepts and notations for constructing high-order

schemes

2

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

An Overview

1

What is numerical partial differential equations?

Many natural phenomena are formulated by partial

differential equations (PDEs) and by solving the equations

one gains a better understanding on the mechanism of

these phenomena.

The topics of numerical PDEs is about constructing

computational algorithms to analyze problems.

2

Does there exist a general methodology for constructing

numerical schemes?

The answer is "Yes" to certain types of problems. General

speaking we need to construct a well-posed analysis on the

problem wherever possible. This analysis is our guide line

for constructing numerical schemes.

3

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Well-posedness of Problems Described by Partial

Differential Equations

Example (Model Wave Problem)

u

t

+

u

x

= 0, x [0, 1], t 0,

u(x, t) = f (x), x [0, 1], t = 0,

u(0, t) = g(t), x = 0, t 0.

Smoothness condition : f (0) = g(0)

We say the problem is well-posed if

1

The solution exists.

2

The solution is unique.

3

The solution is stable.

4

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Well-posedness II

It would be meaningful if there exists a solution to the

problem.

If the problem does have a solution we need to ask

whether the problem has other solutions.

In physics we consider that a physical quantity is a nite

number and can be measured by certain methods or

devices. Moreover, we wish that the system of a physical

problem is stable, in the sense that when a small

perturbation is introduced into the system, the solution

does not deviate away from the unperturbed one.

5

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Well-posedness of the Initial Value Problem

Consider the following example.

Example (2-periodic scalar wave equation)

u

t

+

u

x

= 0, x [0, 2], t 0, (1)

u(x, t) = f (x), t = 0, (2)

u

(p)

(0, t) = u

(p)

(2, t), u

(p)

=

(p)

u

x

(p)

, p = 0, 1, 2, . . . (3)

Does the solution exist ?

6

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Well-posedness of the Initial Value Problem II

Assume

u(x, t) = u

k

(t) e

ikx

, k Z (4)

If (4) is a solution to (1) then

u

t

+

u

x

= 0

du

k

(t)

dt

e

ikx

= (ik) u

k

(t) e

ikx

u

k

(t) = u

k

(0) e

ikt

u(x, t) = u

k

(0) e

ikt

e

ikx

= u

k

(0) e

ik(xt)

7

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Well-posedness of the Initial Value Problem III

Invoking linear superposition we have

u(x, t) =

k=

u

k

(0)e

ik(xt)

.

Take t = 0

u(x, 0) = f (x)

k=

u

k

(0)e

ikx

= f (x)

where u

k

(0) is the fourier coefcients of the function f (x),

provided that f has a fourier series representation.

We have a solution to the problem.

8

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Well-posedness of the Initial Value Problem IV

Uniqueness: Is this the only one ?

Assume that v = u is also a solution to the problem, i.e.,

v

t

+

v

x

= 0, v(x, 0) = f (x), v

(p)

(0, t) = v

(p)

(2, t).

Let w = u v then

w

t

+

w

x

= 0, w(x, 0) = 0, w

(p)

(0, t) = w

(p)

(2, t).

Hence

w(x, t) =

k=

w

k

(0) e

ik(xt)

and w(x, 0) = 0 =

k=

w

k

(0) e

ikx

.

This implies

w

k

(0) = 0 w(x, t) = u(x, t) v(x, t) = 0.

u(x, t) and v(x, t) are identical.

9

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Well-posedness of the Initial Value Problem V

How do we know a solution is stable?

In addition to the issues concerning the existence and

uniqueness of the solution, we also need to know whether

the solution is stable.

Consider the problem:

u

t

+

u

x

= 0,

u(x, 0) = f (x),

u

(p)

(0, t) = u

(p)

(2, t).

Dene the energy of the

system as

Denition

E(t) =

_

2

0

u

2

(x, t) dx

10

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Energy of Physical Systems

We observe similar denitions of energy for various types

of physical systems, for example

1

in electromagnetism

Energy =

_

1

2

E

2

+

1

2

H

2

dx

2

in uid dynamics

Energy =

_

(V V) d

11

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Energy Estimate for

u

t

+

u

x

= 0

Multiplying u to the equation and integrating over the entire

domain, we have the energy rate equation

dE(t)

dt

=

d

dt

_

2

0

u

2

(x, t) dx =

_

2

0

2u

u(x, t)

t

dx

=

_

2

0

2u

_

u

x

_

dx =

_

2

0

u

2

x

dx = u

2

(x, t)

2

0

= 0

Hence,

E(t) = E(0)

_

2

0

u

2

(x, t) dx =

_

2

0

f

2

(x) dx

12

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Well-posedness of the Initial Value Problem VI

Energy of a Perturbed System

Let us now consider the following problems.

Unperturbed Problem:

u

t

+

u

x

= 0

u(x, 0) = f (x)

u

(p)

(0, t) = u

(p)

(2, t)

Perturbed Problem:

v

t

+

v

x

= 0

v(x, 0) = f (x) + (x), |(x)| << 1

v

(p)

(0, t) = v

(p)

(2, t)

13

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Well-posedness of the Initial Value Problem VII

How do we know a solution is stable?

Let w = v u

w

t

+

w

x

= 0

w(x, 0) = (x)

w

(p)

(0, t) = w

(p)

(2, t)

Then

_

2

0

w

2

(x, t) dx =

_

2

0

(v(x, t) u(x, t))

2

dx =

_

2

0

2

(x) dx

At any given time the difference between u and v measured in

the sense of energy is bounded by the energy of the initial

perturbation.

14

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Consistency

Dene the grid points:

x

j

= j h = j

2

N + 1

, j = 0, 1, 2, . . . , N

Let

u(x

j

, t) = u

j

(t)

Recall that

u(x, t)

x

can be approximated by

forward difference:

u

j+1

u

j

h

+O(h)

backward difference:

u

j

u

j1

h

+O(h)

central difference:

u

j+1

u

j1

2h

+O(h

2

)

15

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Upwind Scheme:

dv

i

dt

=

v

i

v

i1

h

I

Dene the numerical solution as

v

i

(t), i = 0, 1, 2, ..., N

satisfying the semi-discrete scheme

dv

i

dt

+

v

i

v

i1

h

= 0, i = 0, 1, ..., N

v

i

(t) = f (x

i

) = f

i

v

1

= v

N

,

16

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Upwind Scheme:

dv

i

dt

=

v

i

v

i1

h

II

Consistency

Substituting the exact solution u

i

(t) = u(x

i

, t) to the scheme

dv

i

dt

+

v

i

v

i1

h

= 0

we get the truncation error (TE)

TE =

du

i

dt

+

u

i

u

i1

h

=

u(x

i

, t)

t

+

u(x

i

, t)

x

+O(h) = O(h).

Observe that TE 0 as h 0. The scheme is consistent.

17

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Upwind Scheme:

dv

i

dt

=

v

i

v

i1

h

III

Energy Estimate

N

i=0

v

i

dv

i

dt

h =

N

i=0

v

i

v

i

+

N

i=0

v

i

v

i1

N

i=0

v

2

i

+

1

2

N

i=0

v

2

i

+

1

2

N

i=0

v

2

i1

=

1

2

N

i=0

v

2

i

+

1

2

N

i=0

v

2

i1

(periodicity v

1

= v

N

)

= 0

18

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Upwind Scheme:

dv

i

dt

=

v

i

v

i1

h

IV

Energy Estimate

Hence

1

2

d

dt

N

i=0

v

2

j

h 0

N

i=0

v

2

i

h

N

i=0

f

2

i

h

The scheme has a bounded energy estimate for a given

terminal time.

Recall the energy estimate of the continuous system:

_

2

0

u

2

(x, t) dx =

_

2

0

f

2

(x) dx.

19

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Down Wind Scheme:

dv

i

dt

=

v

i+1

v

i

h

I

Consider the scheme:

dv

i

dt

=

v

i+1

v

i

h

i = 0, 1, 2, ..., N

v

i

(0) = f (x

i

) = f

i

v

N+1

= v

0

Consistency Check: Substituting the exact solution u

i

(t) to the

scheme we get the truncation error (TE)

TE =

du

i

dt

+

u

i+1

u

i

h

=

u(x

i

, t)

t

+

u(x

i

, t)

x

+O(h) = O(h).

Observe that TE 0 as h 0. The scheme is consistent

20

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Down Wind Scheme:

dv

i

dt

=

v

i+1

v

i

h

II

Energy Estimate

dE(t)

dt

=

N

i=0

v

i

dv

i

dt

h =

N

i=0

v

i+1

v

i

+

N

i=0

v

2

i

=

1

2

N

i=0

v

2

i

+

1

2

N

i=0

v

2

i

N

i=0

v

i+1

v

i

+

1

2

N

i=0

v

2

i+1

1

2

N

i=0

v

2

i+1

=

1

2

N

i=0

(v

i

v

i+1

)

2

0 (= 0 when constant)

21

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Down Wind Scheme:

dv

i

dt

=

v

i+1

v

i

h

III

Energy Estimate

The fact that

dE(t)

dt

=

N

i=0

v

i

dv

i

dt

h 0

leads to

N

i=0

v

2

i

h

N

i=0

f

2

i

h.

We have a scheme with an energy estimate that can not be

bounded by the prescribed data.

22

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

What Does the Bounded Energy Estimate Imply?

Energy of the Error Equation

Consider vectors

a = [a

0

, a

1

, ..., a

N

]

T

, b = [b

0

, b

1

, ..., b

N

]

T

we dene the vector inner product and norm as

(a, b)

h

= a

T

bh =

N

i=0

a

i

b

i

h, ||a||

2

= (a, a)

h

Useful inequality: For real numbers a and b, we have

2ab a

2

+ b

2

For vectors a and b

(a, b)

2

h

||a|| ||b||

23

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

What Does the Bounded Energy Estimate Imply?

Energy of the Error Equation (Upwind Scheme)

Recall the scheme

dv

i

dt

+

v

i

v

i1

h

= 0

v

i

(0) = f (x

i

) = f

i

v

1

= v

N

,

Let u

i

(t) = u(x

i

, t). Then

du

i

dt

+

u

i

u

i1

h

= te

i

, te

i

= O(h)

u

i

(0) = f (x

i

) = f

i

u

1

= u

N

,

Dene e

i

= u

i

v

i

. Then e

i

satises

de

i

dt

+

e

i

e

i1

h

= te

i

,

e

i

(0) = 0

e

1

= e

N

,

We now examine the energy of the discrete system.

24

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

What Does the Bounded Energy Estimate Imply?

Energy of the Error Equation (Upwind Scheme)

Denote

e = [e

0

, e

1

, ..., e

N

]

T

, te = [te

0

, te

1

, ..., te

N

]

T

1

2

d||e||

2

dt

=

N

i=0

e

i

de

i

dt

h =

N

i=0

(e

i

e

i1

)e

i

+

N

i=0

e

i

te

i

h

1

2

N

i=0

(e

i

e

i1

)

2

+

1

2

N

i=0

e

2

i

h +

1

2

N

i=0

te

2

i

h

1

2

||e||

2

+

1

2

||te||

2

25

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

What Does the Bounded Energy Estimate Imply?

Energy of the Error Equation (Upwind Scheme)

e

t

d||e||

2

dt

e

t

||e||

2

e

t

||te||

2

d

dt

_

e

t

||e||

2

_

e

t

||te||

2

e

t

||e(t)||

2

e

0

||e(0)||

2

_

t

0

e

||te()||

2

d

||e(t)||

2

e

t

_

t

0

e

||te()||

2

d

||e(t)||

2

e

t

_

max

[0,t]

||te()||

2

__

t

0

e

d

||e(t)||

2

_

max

[0,t]

||te()||

2

_

(e

t

1)

26

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

What Does the Bounded Energy Estimate Imply?

Energy of the Error Equation (Upwind Scheme)

From

||e(t)||

2

_

max

[0,t]

||te()||

2

_

(e

t

1)

we have

1

As time evolves the error may grow exponentially.

2

For constant t, e

t

1 is xed. As h 0,

max

[0,t]

||te()||

2

0. Hence

||e(t)||

2

= ||u(t) v(t)||

2

0

implying convergence.

27

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

What Does the Bounded Energy Estimate Imply?

Energy of the Error Equation (Down Wind Scheme)

For down wind scheme one can follow a similar and yield

||e|| min

[0,t]

c(t)

h

2

0

(e

0

t

h

1)

where c(t) = O(1) and

0

> 0 is a constant. From the result we

observe that

1

as h 0 h

2

(e

0

t

h

1)

28

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Classical Theory on Convergence

Theorem (Lax-Richtmyer Equivalence Theorem)

A consistent approximation to a linear well-posed partial

differential equation is convergent if and only if it is stable.

Remark:

We need a consistent scheme which has an energy

estimate bounded by the prescribed data.

The upwind scheme is consistent and stable. Thus, the

numerical solution converges to the exact solution.

The downwind scheme is consistent and unstable. Thus,

the numerical solution does not converge to the exact one.

29

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Phase Error Analysis I

Consider the linear wave problem

u

t

= c

u

x

, 0 x 2, (5)

u(x, 0) = e

ikx

.

The solution to equation (5) is a travelling wave

u(x, t) = e

ik(xct)

with phase speed c

30

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Phase Error Analysis II

We use the equidistant grid

x

j

= j x =

2j

N + 1

, j [0, . . . , N].

The 2m-order approximation of the derivative of a function f (x) is

d f

d x

x

j

=

m

n=1

m

n

D

n

f (x

j

)

where

D

n

f (x

j

) =

f (x

j

+ n x) f (x

j

n x)

2n x

=

f

j+n

f

jn

2n x

m

n

= 2(1)

n

(m!)

2

(m n)! (m + n)!

31

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Phase Error Analysis III

In the semi-discrete version of Equation (5) we seek a vector

v = (v

0

(t), v

1

(t), . . . , v

N

(t)) which satises

dv

j

dt

= c

m

n=1

m

n

D

n

v

j

, v

j

(0) = e

ikx

j

. (6)

We may interpret the grid vector, v, as a vector of grid point

values of a trigonometric polynomial, v(x, t), with v(x

j

, t) = v

j

(t),

such that

v(x, t)

t

= c

m

n=1

m

n

D

n

v(x, t), v(x, 0) = e

ikx

(7)

If v(x, t) satises Equation (7), the solution to Equation (6) is

given by v(x

j

, t).

32

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Phase Error Analysis IV

The solution to Equation (7) is

v(x, t) = e

ik(xc

m

(k)t)

,

where c

m

(k) is the numerical wave speed. The dependence of

c

m

on the wave number k is known as the dispersion relation.

The phase error e

m

(k), is dened as the leading term in the

relative error between the actual solution u(x, t) and the

approximate solution v(x, t):

u(x, t) v(x, t)

u(x, t)

1 e

ik(cc

m

(k))t

|k(c c

m

(k))t| = e

m

(k).

33

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Phase Error Analysis V

Applying phase error analysis to the second-order nite

difference scheme

v(x, t)

t

= c

v(x + x, t) v(x x, t)

2x

,

v(x, 0) = e

ikx

,

we obtain the numerical phase speed

c

1

(k) = c

sin(kx)

kx

.

For x 1,

c

1

(k) = c

_

1

(k x)

2

6

+O

_

(k x)

4

_

_

,

conrming the second-order accuracy of the scheme.

34

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Phase Error Analysis VI

For the fourth-order scheme

v(x, t)

t

=

c

12 x

_

v(x 2 x, t) 8v(x x, t)

+ 8v(x + x, t) v(x + 2 x, t)

_

,

we obtain

c

2

(k) = c

_

8 sin(kx) sin(2kx)

6kx

_

.

For x 1 we recover the approximation

c

2

(k) = c

_

1

(kx)

4

30

+O

_

(kx)

6

_

_

.

illustrating the expected fourth-order accuracy.

35

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Phase Error Analysis VII

Denoting e

1

(k, t) as the phase error of the second-order

scheme and e

2

(k, t) as the phase error of the fourth-order

scheme, with the corresponding numerical wave speeds c

1

(k)

and c

2

(k), we obtain

e

1

(k, t) = kct

1

sin(kx)

kx

, (8)

e

2

(k, t) = kct

1

8 sin(kx) sin(2kx)

6kx

. (9)

36

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Phase Error Analysis VIII

Introduce

p =

N + 1

k

=

2

kx

(the number of points per wavelength)

=

kct

2

(the number of periods in time)

Rewriting the phase error in term of p and yields

e

1

(p, v) = 2v

1

sin(2p

1

)

2p

1

, (10)

e

2

(p, v) = 2v

1

8 sin(2p

1

) sin(4p

1

)

12p

1

. (11)

37

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Phase Error Analysis IX

The leading order approximation to (10) is

e

1

(p, v)

v

3

_

2

p

_

2

, (12)

e

2

(p, v)

v

15

_

2

p

_

4

(13)

from which we immediately observe that the phase error is

directly proportional to the number of periods i.e., the error

grows linearly in time.

38

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Phase Error Analysis X

We arrive at a more straightforward measure of the error of the

scheme by introducing p

m

(

p

, ) as a measure of the number of

points per wavelength required to guarantee a phase error,

e

p

p

, after periodic for a 2m-order scheme. Indeed, from

(12) we directly obtain the lower bounds

p

1

(, v) 2

_

v

3

p

(14)

p

2

(, v) 2

4

_

v

15

p

(15)

39

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Phase Error Analysis XI

Example

p

= 0.1 Consider the case in which the desired phase error is

10%. For this relatively large error,

p

1

20

v, p

2

7

4

v.

= 0.01 When the desired phase error is within 1%, we have

p

1

64

v, p

2

13

4

v.

= 10

5

p

1

643

v, p

2

43

4

v

40

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Phase Error Analysis XII

Sixth-order method

As an illustration of the general trend in the behavior of the

phase error, we give the bound on p

3

(

p

, ) for the sixth-order

centered-difference scheme as

p

3

(

p

, ) 2

6

_

70

p

,

for which the above special cases become

p

3

(0.1, ) = 5

6

, p

3

(0.01, ) = 8

6

, p

3

(10

5

, ) = 26

6

,

conrming that when high accuracy is required, a high-order is

the optimal choice.

41

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Energy Estimate of IBVP

Consider the initial boundary value problem:

u

t

+

u

x

= 0 x [0, 1] t 0

u(x, 0) = f (x) x [0, 1] t = 0

u(1, t) = g(t) x = 0 t 0.

42

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Energy Estimate of IBVP

Multiplying u to the partial differential equation, integrating over

the domain and applying the boundary condition, we have

_

1

0

u

u

t

dx =

_

1

0

u

u

x

dx

1

2

dE

dt

=

1

2

u

2

1

0

=

1

2

u

2

(0, t)

1

2

u

2

(1, t), E(t) =

_

1

0

u

2

(x, t) dx

dE

dt

= g

2

(t) u

2

(1, t) g

2

(t)

Integrating the energy rate equation with respect to time and

invoking the initial condition, we have

E(t) E(0) +

_

t

0

g

2

() d E(0) + t G, G = max

[0,t]

g

2

()

or

_

1

0

u

2

(x, t)dx

_

1

0

f

2

(x)dx + t G

43

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Schemes for the Model Wave Equation

We now construct nite difference schemes for the model wave

problem

u

t

+

u

x

= 0, x [0, 1], t 0,

u(x, t) = f (x), x [0, 1], t = 0,

u(0, t) = g(t), x = 0, t 0.

We dene the grid points as

x

i

= ih, h = 1/N, i = 0, 1, 2, ..., N

Denote v

i

(t) the approximation of u(x

i

, t) at x

i

.

44

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Upwind Scheme I

Strongly Enforced Boundary Condition

Consider the scheme

dv

i

dt

+

v

i

v

i1

h

= 0, i = 1, 2, . . . , N

v

i

(0) = f (x

i

)

v

0

(t) = g(t)

Accuracy: rst order in space

Stability

N

i=1

v

i

dv

i

dt

h =

N

i=1

v

i

(v

i

v

i1

)

45

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Upwind Scheme II

Strongly Enforced Boundary Condition

1

2

d

dt

E

D

(t) =

1

2

d

dt

N

i=1

h v

2

i

(t) =

N

i=1

v

2

i

+

N

i=1

v

i

v

i1

=

1

2

N

i=1

v

2

i

1

2

N

i=1

v

2

i

+

N

i=1

v

i

v

i1

1

2

N

i=1

v

2

i1

+

1

2

N

i=1

v

2

i1

=

1

2

N

i=1

v

2

i

1

2

N

i=1

(v

i

v

i1

)

2

+

1

2

N1

i=0

v

2

i

=

1

2

v

2

0

1

2

v

2

N

1

2

N

i=1

(v

i

v

i1

)

2

=

1

2

g

2

(t)

1

2

v

2

N

1

2

N

i=1

(v

i

v

i1

)

2

1

2

g

2

(t)

46

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Upwind Scheme III

Strongly Enforced Boundary Condition

Then

dE

D

(t)

dt

g

2

(t) E

D

(t) E

D

(0) +

_

t

0

g

2

() d,

or explicitly

N

i=1

h v

2

i

(t)

N

i=1

h f

2

i

+

_

t

0

g

2

() d

Recall that for the continuous system we have

_

1

0

u

2

(x, t) dx

_

1

0

f

2

(x) dx +

_

t

0

g

2

() d

47

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Upwind Scheme IV

Weakly Enforced Boundary Condition

Consider the scheme

dv

i

dt

+

v

i

v

i1

h

= 0 i = 1, 2, . . . , N

dv

0

dt

+

v

1

v

0

h

= (v

0

g(t))

v

i

(0) = f (x

i

) i = 0, 1, 2, . . . , N

: free parameter.

(1) 0 (the scheme behaves like the PDE)

dv

0

dt

+

v

1

v

0

h

= (v

0

g(t)) 0

(2) (the scheme behaves like the boundary condition)

v

0

g(t) =

1

_

dv

0

dt

+

v

1

v

0

h

_

0

48

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Upwind Scheme V

Weakly Enforced Boundary Condition

Accuracy: 1st order in space

Stability: We need to check whether the discrete energy

E

D

(t) =

N

i=0

v

2

i

(t)h

has an estimate bounded by the prescribed data and .

49

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Upwind Scheme VI

Weakly Enforced Boundary Condition

Multiplying v

i

h to the scheme and summing up the resultant

equations, we have

N

i=0

v

i

dv

i

dt

h =

N

i=1

v

i

(v

i

v

i1

) v

0

(v

1

v

0

) h v

0

(v

0

g(t))

Recall

i=1

v

i

(v

i

v

i1

) =

1

2

v

2

0

1

2

v

2

N

1

2

N

i=1

(v

i

v

i1

)

2

1

2

dE

D

dt

=

1

2

v

2

0

1

2

v

2

N

1

2

N

i=2

(v

i

v

i1

)

2

1

2

(v

2

1

2v

1

v

0

+ v

2

0

)

v

0

v

1

+ v

2

0

h v

0

(v

0

g(t))

=

1

2

v

2

N

1

2

N

i=2

(v

i

v

i1

)

2

1

2

v

2

1

+ v

2

0

(1 h) + h v

0

g(t)

50

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Upwind Scheme VII

Weakly Enforced Boundary Condition

dE

D

dt

=v

2

N

v

2

1

i=2

(v

i

v

i1

)

2

+ 2(1 h)

_

v

0

+

hg(t)

2(1 h)

_

2

2

h

2

g

2

(t)

2(1 h)

Take 1 h < 0 >

1

h

dE

D

dt

2

h

2

g

2

(t)

2(h 1)

If h = 2

dE

D

dt

2 g

2

(t) E

D

(t) E

D

(0) + 2

_

t

0

g

2

() d

51

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Upwind Scheme VII

Weakly Enforced Boundary Condition

Remarks:

1

By properly choosing the value of the parameter the

scheme has a bounded energy estimate, implying stability.

2

Since > 1/h as h 0, , the equation at x

0

= 0,

v

0

g(t) =

1

_

dv

0

dt

+

v

1

v

0

h

_

converges to the boundary condition as h 0.

52

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Central Difference Scheme I

Strongly Enforced Boundary Condition

Consider the scheme

dv

i

dt

+

v

i+1

v

i1

2h

= 0 i = 1, 2, . . . , N

dv

N

dt

+

v

N

v

N1

h

= 0

v

0

(t) = g(t)

v

i

(0) = f (x

i

)

Accuracy: 2nd order at interior points

1st order at boundary points

globally second order

1

1

Gustafsson (1975) The Convergence Rate for Difference Approximations

to Mixed Initial Boundary Value Problems

53

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Central Difference Scheme II

Strongly Enforced Boundary Condition

Let c

N

=

1

2

, c

i

= 1 for i = N. Multiplying c

i

v

i

h to the scheme we

have

N

i=1

c

i

v

i

dv

i

dt

h =

N1

i=1

v

i

_

v

i+1

v

i1

2

_

v

N

_

v

N

v

N1

2

_

d

dt

N

i=1

c

i

v

2

i

h =

N1

i=1

v

i

(v

i+1

v

i1

) v

N

(v

N

v

N1

)

=

N1

i=1

v

i

v

i+1

+

N1

i=1

v

i

v

i1

v

2

N

+ v

N

v

N1

54

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Central Difference Scheme III

Strongly Enforced Boundary Condition

d

dt

N

i=1

c

i

v

2

i

h =

N1

i=1

v

i

v

i+1

+

N

i=1

v

i

v

i1

v

2

N

=

N1

i=1

v

i

v

i+1

+

N1

i=0

v

i+1

v

i

v

2

N

= v

1

v

0

v

2

N

We have no idea on bounding the discrete energy rate.

55

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Central Difference Scheme IV

Weakly Enforced Boundary Condition

Consider the scheme

dv

i

dt

+

v

i+1

v

i1

2h

= 0 i = 1, 2, . . . , N 1

dv

N

dt

+

v

N

v

N1

h

= 0

dv

0

dt

+

v

1

v

0

h

= (v

0

g(t))

1

2

v

0

dv

0

dt

h +

N1

i=1

v

i

dv

i

dt

h +

1

2

v

N

dv

N

dt

h

=

N1

i=1

v

i

(v

i+1

v

i1

)

2

v

N

(v

N

v

N1

)

2

(v

1

v

0

)v

0

2

hv

0

2

(v

0

g(t))

56

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Central Difference Scheme V

Weakly Enforced Boundary Condition

d

dt

N

i=0

c

i

v

2

i

h = v

1

v

0

v

2

N

v

1

v

0

+ v

2

0

hv

2

0

+ hv

0

g(t)

= v

2

N

+ (1 h)v

2

0

+ hv

0

g(t)

= v

2

N

+ (1 h)

_

v

2

0

+

h

1 h

v

0

g(t) +

_

h

2(1 h)

_

2

g

2

(t)

_

(1 h)

_

h

2(1 h)

_

2

g

2

(t)

If h = 2

d

dt

N

i=0

c

i

v

2

i

h = v

2

N

(v

0

g(t))

2

+ g

2

(t) g

2

(t)

i=0

c

i

v

2

i

(t)h

N

i=0

c

i

f

2

i

h +

_

t

0

g

2

() d

57

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Central Difference Scheme VI

Weakly Enforced Boundary Condition

Remarks:

1

By properly choosing the value of the scheme has a

discrete energy estimate that is bounded by the prescribed

data f

i

and g(t) and it is independent of N. This implies

stability.

2

A scheme is stable at the semi-discrete level does not

ensure the stability of the scheme at the fully discrete level.

This is because the stability condition at the semidiscrete

level is only a necessary condition.

3

The advantage of using semidiscrete analysis is that we

can check whether the boundary closure will cause

instability, and possibly x the problem.

58

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Central Difference Scheme VI

Matrix Vector Representation

Let v = [v

0

(t) v

1

(t) v

N

(t)] The scheme has a matrix-vector

representation as

d

dt

v

0

v

1

v

2

.

.

.

v

N1

v

N

+

1

2h

2 2 0

1 0 1

.

.

.

0 1 0 1

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

1 0 1

0 2 2

v

0

v

1

v

2

.

.

.

v

N1

v

N

(v

0

g(t))

0

0

.

.

.

0

0

or

d

dt

v(t) + Dv(t) = (v

0

g(t))e

0

, e

0

= [1 0 0 0 0]

T

Dene H = diag(

1

2

, 1, 1, , 1,

1

2

)

v

T

H

dv

dt

h + v

T

H Dh v(t) = (v

0

g(t))v

T

He

0

h

59

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Central Difference Scheme VII

Interesting Property: Summation-by-Parts Rule

Observe

H Dh =

1

2

1/2 0

0 1

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

1 0

0 1/2

2 2 0

1 0 1

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

1 0 1

2 2

=

1

2

1 1 0

1 0 1

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

1 0 1

1 1

=

1

2

1

0

.

.

.

1

+

1

2

0 1 0

1 0 0

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

0 0 1

1 0

=Q

S

+ Q

A

So

v

T

HDhv = v

T

Q

S

v + v

T

Q

A

v =

1

2

(v

2

0

+ v

2

N

)

60

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Central Difference Scheme VII

Interesting Property: Summation-by-Parts Rule

Hence

v

T

H

dv

dt

h = v

T

H Dh v (v

0

g(t))v

T

He

0

h

1

2

d

dt

_

v

T

Hvh

=

1

2

v

2

0

1

2

v

2

N

h

2

v

0

(v

0

g(t))

The rule

v

T

HDhv = v

T

Q

S

v + v

T

Q

A

v =

1

2

(v

2

0

+ v

2

N

)

in fact mimic the action of

_

1

0

u(x)

u(x)

x

dx =

1

2

u(1)

1

2

u(0)

61

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

From Low-Order to High-Order Methods

To construct a high-order scheme we basically seek a

differentiation matrix D (resulting from central and

one-sided difference scheme) and a positive denite matrix

H such that a rule similar to

v

T

HDhv = v

T

Q

S

v + v

T

Q

A

v =

1

2

(v

2

0

+ v

2

N

)

exists.

Notice that a summation-by-parts rule is only for estimating

the energy of the system. To stably impose boundary

conditions we still use the penalty methodology.

62

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Basic Concepts and Notations I

Let I = [0, 1]. Consider two functions f (x) and g(x) dened on I.

We dene the continuous L

2

inner product and norm for

functions over I as

(f , g) =

_

I

f g dx, ||f ||

2

I

= (f , f )

Consider I

2

= [0, 1] [0, 1]. The continuous L

2

inner product

and norm for functions over I

2

are dened as

(f , g) =

_

I

2

f g dx dy, ||f ||

2

I

2

= (f , f ).

Likewise, for functions dened on I

3

= [0, 1] [0, 1] [0, 1] we

denote the continuous L

2

inner product and norm for functions

over I

3

as

(f , g) =

_

I

3

f g dx dy dz, ||f ||

2

I

3

= (f , f ).

63

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Basic Concepts and Notations II

We introduce a set of uniformly spaced grid points:

x

i

= ih, i = 0, 1, 2, ..., L, h = 1/L,

where h is the grid distance. Consider two vectors, f , g V

L+1

,

explicitly given by

f = [f

0

, f

1

, ..., f

L

]

T

, g = [g

0

, g

1

, ..., g

L

]

T

,

We dene a weighted discrete L

2

inner product and norm, with

respect to the step size h and the matrix M, for vectors as

(f , g)

h,M

= hf

T

Mg, ||f ||

2

h,M

= (f , f )

h,M

.

If M is an identity matrix then

(f , g)

h

= hf

T

g, ||f ||

2

h

= (f , f )

h

.

64

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Basic Concepts and Notations III

To numerically approximate a function u and its derivative

du/dx, we consider the difference approximation of the form

Pv

x

= h

1

Qv, or v

x

= Dv = h

1

P

1

Qv, (16)

where

v = [v

0

, v

1

, ..., v

L

]

T

, v

x

= [v

x

0

, v

x

1

, ..., v

x

L

]

T

,

denote the numerical approximations of u and u

evaluated at

the grid points, and D, P, Q M

L+1

.

65

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Basic Concepts and Notations IV

Let u and u

x

denote vectors with components being,

respectively, the collocated values of the functions u and du/dx

at the grid points, i.e.,

u = [u(x

0

), u(x

1

), ..., u(x

L

)]

T

, u

x

=

_

du(x

0

)

dx

,

du(x

1

)

dx

, ...,

du(x

L

)

dx

_

T

.

The truncation error t

e

of the scheme Eq.(16) is dened by

Pt

e

= Pu

x

h

1

Qu,

and |t

e

| = O(h

x

, h

x

) where and are the convergence rates

of the approximation at interior and boundary grid points,

respectively.

66

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Basic Concepts and Notations V

We devise implicit difference methods for approximating the

differential operator d/dx by constructing a special class of P

and Q satisfying the following properties;

SBP1: The matrix P is symmetric positive denite.

SBP2: The matrix Q is nearly skew-symmetric and satises the

constraint

Q + Q

T

2

= diag(q

00

, 0, ..., 0, q

LL

), q

00

< 0, q

LL

= q

00

> 0.

where q

00

and q

LL

are the upper most and lower most diagonal

elements of Q.

67

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Summation-by-Parts Rule in 1D Space I

Lemma (Summation-by-Parts)

Consider the difference operator D = h

1

P

1

Q where P and Q

satisfy SBP1 and SBP2, respectively. We have

(v, Dv)

h,P

= (v, h

1

P

1

Qv)

h,P

= q

00

v

2

0

+ q

LL

v

2

L

,

for v V

L+1

.

68

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Summation-by-Parts Rule in 1D Space II

Proof.

First we rewrite the inner product as

(v, Dv)

h,P

=

_

v, h

1

Qv

_

h

= v

T

Q

S

v + v

T

Q

A

v

where Q

S

= (Q + Q

T

)/2 and Q

A

= (Q Q

T

)/2 are, respectively,

the symmetric and anti-symmetric parts of the matrix Q. Notice

that v

T

Q

A

v = 0 since Q

A

is antisymmetric. Thus, we have

(v, Dv)

h,P

= v

T

Q

S

v = q

00

v

2

0

+ q

LL

v

2

L

,

where the last equality is due to SPB2. This completes the

proof.

69

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

One Dimensional Advection Equation I

Consider the advection equation

u

t

+

u

x

= 0, x I, t 0, (17)

with the initial condition

u(x, 0) = f (x), x I, (18)

and the boundary condition

u(0, t) = g(t), t 0. (19)

70

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

One Dimensional Advection Equation II

Equation (17) leads to an energy rate

d

dt

||u||

2

I

= g

2

(t) u

2

(1, t),

For well-posed analysis it is sufcient to consider g = 0, and we

obtain an energy estimate

||u(x, t)||

2

I

||u(x, 0)||

2

I

= ||f (x)||

2

I

. (20)

71

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

One Dimensional Advection Equation III

Consider a equally spaced partition:

x

i

= ih, h = 1/L.

With v

i

denoting the approximation of u(x

i

), we seek a

numerical solution v of the form

v(t) = [v

0

(t), v

1

(t), ..., v

L

(t)]

T

,

which satises the semidiscrete scheme

dv

dt

+ h

1

P

1

Qv = h

1

q

00

(v

0

g(t))P

1

e

0

, (21a)

v(0) = f = [f (x

0

), f (x

1

), ..., f (x

L

)]

T

, (21b)

where P and Q are dened by Eq.(16), and e

0

= [1, 0, ..., 0]

T

.

72

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

One Dimensional Advection Equation IV

Theorem

Assume that there exists a smooth solution to the one dimen-

sional wave problem described by Eqs.(17-19). Then Eq.(21a)

is stable at the semi-discrete level provided that

1.

Moreover, v(t) satises the estimate

||v(t)||

2

h,P

||f ||

2

h,P

.

73

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

One Dimensional Advection Equation V

Proof.

Multiplying hv

T

P to the scheme and invoking Lemma 11 we

obtain

1

2

d

dt

||v||

2

h,P

= (q

00

v

2

0

+ q

LL

v

2

L

) + v

0

q

00

(v

0

g(t)).

For the stability analysis, it is sufcient enough to consider the

scheme subject to g(t) = 0. Hence,

1

2

d

dt

||v||

2

h,P

= q

00

( 1)v

2

0

q

LL

v

2

L

q

00

( 1)v

2

0

,

where the last inequality results from q

LL

> 0 demanded by

SBP2. Recall that q

00

< 0.

74

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

One Dimensional Advection Equation VI

So, taking 1 immediately yields a non-increasing energy

rate

1

2

d

dt

||v||

2

h,P

0,

which leads to the estimate

||v(t)||

2

h,P

||v(0)||

2

h,P

= ||f ||

2

h,P

.

Thus, the scheme is stable. This completes the proof.

75

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Important Reference: Bo Strand (1994)

Difference method

v

x

=

1

h

Qv,

Summation-By-Parts

vHv

x

=

1

h

vHQv =

1

2

(v

2

N

v

2

0

)

76

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Fourth-Order (Class 1: Accuracy = 4, = 3)

H =

_

_

_

H

U

_

.

.

.

_

H

L

_

_

_

hQ =

_

_

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

_

_

77

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Bo Strand (Class 2: Accuracy = 6, = 3)

H = diag[h

00

, h

11

, h

22

, . . . . . . ]

hQ =

_

_

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

_

_

78

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Other References

Bo Strand (1998) Numerical studies of hyperbolic IBVP

with high-order nite difference operators satisfying a

summation by parts rule

Jan Nordstrm, Mark H. Carpenter (2001) High-Order

Finite Difference Methods, Multidimensional Linear

Problems, and Curvilinear Coordinates

Ken Mattsson, Jan Nordstrm (2004), Summation by parts

operators for nite difference approximations of second

derivatives

Magnus Sard, Jan Nordstrm (2006), On the order of

accuracy for difference approximations of initial- boundary

value problems

79

Introduction Well-posed Problems Numerical Framework Phase Error Analysis Penalty Method SBP Difference

Carpenter, Gottlieb, Abarbanel (1994)

Difference Method:

Pv

x

= Qv

Summation-by-parts rule:

v

T

HPv

x

= v

T

HQv =

1

2

_

v

2

N

v

2

0

_

P is tridiagonal (implicit method) and HP is symmetric positive

denite.

Class 1: Accuracy = 4, = 3

Class 2: Accuracy = 6, = 5 (H is a identity matrix)

80

- Complete Solutions Manual for -Uploaded byluhputu_ekayani
- Numerical MethodUploaded byShamit Rathi
- Patidar Nonstandard Finite Difference MethodsUploaded byjjj_ddd_pierre
- Process Modelling and SimulationUploaded byVishal Gupta
- Iterative Refinement for Linear Systems and LAPACK 10[1].1.1.129Uploaded byRealiZM
- Numerical Solution Of Delay Differential Equations Using The Adomian Decomposition Method(ADM)Uploaded bytheijes
- Machine LearningUploaded bysandyiitkgp
- Matlab TutorialUploaded byneoiitk
- UT Dallas Syllabus for phys3311.501.07f taught by (jhuffman)Uploaded byUT Dallas Provost's Technology Group
- tmp9A5EUploaded byFrontiers
- Cfd LectureUploaded byAranya Dan
- CONM TechMax SyllabusUploaded byshyjuother9773
- Paper 24-A Posteriori Error Estimator for Mixed Approximation of the Navier-Stokes Equations With the C a b c Boundary ConditionUploaded byEditor IJACSA
- PDE-Steebs-partial.pdfUploaded byThumper Kates
- CJR DE IIUploaded byAte Malem Sari Ginting
- Errors in Numerical Analysis PDFUploaded byAngela
- Eml 5060 - Syllabus Fall 2016 (8)Uploaded byApratim Dasgupta
- Differential Equations numerical analysisUploaded byBashar Alibrahim
- OGHENEFEJIRO cv.docxUploaded byFejiro Godswill Akpodamure
- 10.1016@j.camwa.2008.10.067Uploaded bype
- CFD -Part 2_1 - Classification of ODE and PDE EquationsUploaded byAhmed Alsabaa
- Solving a System of Second-order Ordinary Differential Equations with a Fourth-order Nystrom MethodUploaded byHarsha Suranjith Amarasiri
- MATHEMATICAL-MODELLING-OF-WATER-QUALITY-IN-PINACANAUAN-de-TUGUEGARAO-RIVER.docxUploaded byRhea Mamba
- 6-mcmUploaded byscribd9885343478
- 4thJtUSMtg-jmmcdUploaded bySaher Saher
- my_paper.pdfUploaded byصلاح الماربي
- 2.pdfUploaded bypritam gole
- Week.12Uploaded bysanh137
- Handout and Home AssignmentMCA2018BATCH2NDSEMUploaded byYuktima Chaurasiya
- c35-THBook-MBI.pdfUploaded byThangadurai Senthil Ram Prabhu

- banach separation thrm.pdfUploaded byYogesh Rana
- Matrix NormUploaded byrodwellhead
- ThesisUploaded byViney Bansal
- Ch5 VectorsUploaded byMonch D. Arief
- Vectors & GeometryUploaded bysourav_cybermusic
- RechtFazelParrilo GuaranteedMinimumRankSolutionsOfLinearMatrixEquationsViaNuclearNormMinimization SIAMUploaded byCarl Woods
- __Notes_on_functional_analysis.pdfUploaded byluishipp
- [Karl F. Warnick] Numerical Analysis for ElectromaUploaded byAnil Kumar Nayak
- vectorsUploaded byJemason
- vector1.1.pptUploaded byZazliana Izatti
- cfd notesUploaded byAjit Chandran
- 32761435 Theory of Financial Decision MakingUploaded byMikkel Eliasen
- Toeplitz and Circulant Matrices.pdfUploaded byWon Raima
- DFT.pdfUploaded byAnkit Bansal
- QB EnggMechanicsUploaded byManish Shashikant Dharek
- Forces in Structures_NotesUploaded bycmmondieki
- xsadsUploaded byJojen
- EM_1.2_RMUploaded byMangam Rajkumar
- Chapter 3 - Lecture NotesUploaded byMelissa Encarnacion
- chap7Uploaded bysanathkeshav
- NCERT Ph 1 Motion PlaneUploaded bykdsiddhant
- Applied Numerical ComputingUploaded bynkapre
- Math for Machine LearningUploaded byjoekowalsky
- Unit1.Inner Product Spaces.Uploaded byPrafulla Patil
- MIT8_05F13_ps3.pdfUploaded byLim Zheng Liang
- Vectors Concept 2014Uploaded bysanjeev1000
- Class Problems Sentences 13 the dUploaded byKnowledgeIsTruePower
- CompleteUploaded byclausfse
- Convergence FEMUploaded bykannanju
- Applied MathematicsUploaded byAgatheVU