American Institute of Mathematical Sciences

Advanced
September  2018, 23(7): 2641-2660. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2018081

A comparison of boundary correction methods for Strang splitting

Lukas Einkemmer and  Alexander Ostermann ,

Department of Mathematics, University of Innsbruck, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria

* Corresponding author: Alexander Ostermann

Received  September 2016 Revised  August 2017 Published  September 2018 Early access  March 2018

In this paper we investigate splitting methods in the presence of non-homogeneous boundary conditions. In particular, we consider the corrections that have been described and analyzed in Einkemmer, Ostermann 2015 and Alonso-Mallo, Cano, Reguera 2016. The latter method is extended to the non-linear case, and a rigorous convergence analysis is provided. We perform numerical simulations for diffusion-reaction, advection-reaction, and dispersion-reaction equations in order to evaluate the relative performance of these two corrections. Furthermore, we introduce an extension of both methods to obtain order three locally and evaluate under what circumstances this is beneficial.

Keywords: Splitting methods, Dirichlet boundary condition, order reduction, numerical comparison.
Mathematics Subject Classification: Primary: 65M12, 65J08.
Citation: Lukas Einkemmer, Alexander Ostermann. A comparison of boundary correction methods for Strang splitting. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2018, 23 (7) : 2641-2660. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2018081
References:
[1]

I. Alonso-Mallo, B. Cano and N. Reguera, Avoiding order reduction when integrating linear initial boundary value problems with exponential splitting methods, IMA J. Numer. Anal., (2017), in press. doi: 10.1093/imanum/drx047.  Google Scholar

[2]

I. Alonso-Mallo, B. Cano and N. Reguera, Avoiding order reduction when integrating linear initial boundary value problems with Lawson methods, IMA J. Numer. Anal., 37 (2017), 2091-2119.   Google Scholar

[3]

W. Bao, S. Jin and P. A. Markowich, On time-splitting spectral approximations for the Schrödinger equation in the semiclassical regime, J. Comput. Phys., 175 (2002), 487-524.  doi: 10.1006/jcph.2001.6956.  Google Scholar

[4]

B. Cano and N. Reguera, Avoiding order reduction when integrating nonlinear Schrödinger equation with Strang method, J. Comput. Appl. Math., 316 (2017), 86-99.  doi: 10.1016/j.cam.2016.09.033.  Google Scholar

[5]

M. H. Carpenter, D. Gottlieb, S. Abarbanel and W. S. Don, The theoretical accuracy of Runge--Kutta time discretizations for the initial boundary value problem: a study of the boundary error, SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 16 (1995), 1241-1252.  doi: 10.1137/0916072.  Google Scholar

[6]

F. Casas, N. Crouseilles, E. Faou and M. Mehrenberger, High-order Hamiltonian splitting for Vlasov--Poisson equations, Numer. Math., 135 (2017), 769-801.  doi: 10.1007/s00211-016-0816-z.  Google Scholar

[7]

C. Cheng and G. Knorr, The integration of the Vlasov equation in configuration space, J. Comput. Phys., 22 (1976), 330-351.  doi: 10.2172/4200114.  Google Scholar

[8]

J. M. Connors, J. W. Banks, J. A. Hittinger and C. S. Woodward, Quantification of errors for operator-split advection--diffusion calculations, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., 272 (2014), 181-197.  doi: 10.1016/j.cma.2014.01.005.  Google Scholar

[9]

N. Crouseilles, L. Einkemmer and E. Faou, A Hamiltonian splitting for the Vlasov--Maxwell system, J. Comput. Phys., 283 (2015), 224-240.  doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2014.11.029.  Google Scholar

[10]

N. Crouseilles, L. Einkemmer and E. Faou, An asymptotic preserving scheme for the relativistic Vlasov--Maxwell equations in the classical limit, Comput. Phys. Commun., 209 (2016), 13-26.  doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2016.08.001.  Google Scholar

[11]

C. N. Dawson and M. F. Wheeler, Time-splitting methods for advection-diffusion-reaction equations arising in contaminant transport, In R. O'Malley, editor, Proceedings of ICIAM 91 (Washington, DC, 1991), pages 71-82. SIAM, Philadelphia, 1992.  Google Scholar

[12]

S. Descombes, Convergence of a splitting method of high order for reaction-diffusion systems, Math. Comp., 70 (2001), 1481-1501.   Google Scholar

[13]

L. Einkemmer and A. Ostermann, Convergence analysis of Strang splitting for Vlasov-type equations, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 52 (2014), 140-155.  doi: 10.1137/130918599.  Google Scholar

[14]

L. Einkemmer and A. Ostermann, A splitting approach for the Kadomtsev--Petviashvili equation, J. Comput. Phys., 299 (2015), 716-730.  doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2015.07.024.  Google Scholar

[15]

L. Einkemmer and A. Ostermann, Overcoming order reduction in diffusion-reaction splitting. Part 1: Dirichlet boundary conditions, SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 37 (2015), A1577-A1592.  doi: 10.1137/140994204.  Google Scholar

[16]

L. Einkemmer and A. Ostermann, Overcoming order reduction in diffusion-reaction splitting. Part 2: Oblique boundary conditions, SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 38 (2016), A3741-A3757.  doi: 10.1137/16M1056250.  Google Scholar

[17]

E. Faou, Geometric Numerical Integration and Schrödinger Equations, European Mathematical Society, Zürich, 2012.  Google Scholar

[18]

A. Gerisch and J. G. Verwer, Operator splitting and approximate factorization for taxis-diffusion-reaction models, Appl. Numer. Math., 42 (2002), 159-176.  doi: 10.1016/S0168-9274(01)00148-9.  Google Scholar

[19]

V. Grandgirard, M. Brunetti, P. Bertrand, N. Besse, X. Garbet, P. Ghendrih, G. Manfredi, Y. Sarazin, O. Sauter, E. Sonnendrücker, J. Vaclavik and L. Villard, A drift-kinetic Semi-Lagrangian 4D code for ion turbulence simulation, J. Comput. Phys., 217 (2006), 395-423.  doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2006.01.023.  Google Scholar

[20]

V. Grimm and M. Hochbruck, Error analysis of exponential integrators for oscillatory second-order differential equations, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen., 39 (2006), 5495-5507.  doi: 10.1088/0305-4470/39/19/S10.  Google Scholar

[21]

M. Hochbruck and C. Lubich, Exponential integrators for quantum-classical molecular dynamics, BIT, 39 (1999), 620-645.  doi: 10.1023/A:1022335122807.  Google Scholar

[22]

H. Holden, C. Lubich and N. Risebro, Operator splitting for partial differential equations with Burgers nonlinearity, Math. Comp., 82 (2013), 173-185.   Google Scholar

[23]

W. Hundsdorfer and J. G. Verwer, A note on splitting errors for advection-reaction equations, Appl. Numer. Math., 18 (1995), 191-199.  doi: 10.1016/0168-9274(95)00069-7.  Google Scholar

[24]

W. Hundsdorfer and J. G. Verwer, Numerical Solution of Time-Dependent Advection-Diffusion-Reaction Equations, Springer, Berlin, 2003.  Google Scholar

[25]

C. Klein and K. Roidot, Fourth order time-stepping for Kadomtsev--Petviashvili and Davey--Stewartson equations, SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 33 (2011), 3333-3356.  doi: 10.1137/100816663.  Google Scholar

[26]

R. J. LeVeque and J. Oliger, Numerical methods based on additive splittings for hyperbolic partial differential equations, Math. Comp., 40 (1983), 469-497.  doi: 10.1090/S0025-5718-1983-0689466-8.  Google Scholar

[27]

C. Lubich, On splitting methods for Schrödinger--Poisson and cubic nonlinear Schrödinger equations, Math. Comp., 77 (2008), 2141-2153.  doi: 10.1090/S0025-5718-08-02101-7.  Google Scholar

[28]

E. J. Spee, J. G. Verwer, P. M. deZeeuw, J. G. Blom and W. Hundsdorfer, A numerical study for global atmospheric transport-chemistry problems, Math. Comput. Simulat., 48 (1998), 177-204.   Google Scholar

show all references

References:
[1]

I. Alonso-Mallo, B. Cano and N. Reguera, Avoiding order reduction when integrating linear initial boundary value problems with exponential splitting methods, IMA J. Numer. Anal., (2017), in press. doi: 10.1093/imanum/drx047.  Google Scholar

[2]

I. Alonso-Mallo, B. Cano and N. Reguera, Avoiding order reduction when integrating linear initial boundary value problems with Lawson methods, IMA J. Numer. Anal., 37 (2017), 2091-2119.   Google Scholar

[3]

W. Bao, S. Jin and P. A. Markowich, On time-splitting spectral approximations for the Schrödinger equation in the semiclassical regime, J. Comput. Phys., 175 (2002), 487-524.  doi: 10.1006/jcph.2001.6956.  Google Scholar

[4]

B. Cano and N. Reguera, Avoiding order reduction when integrating nonlinear Schrödinger equation with Strang method, J. Comput. Appl. Math., 316 (2017), 86-99.  doi: 10.1016/j.cam.2016.09.033.  Google Scholar

[5]

M. H. Carpenter, D. Gottlieb, S. Abarbanel and W. S. Don, The theoretical accuracy of Runge--Kutta time discretizations for the initial boundary value problem: a study of the boundary error, SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 16 (1995), 1241-1252.  doi: 10.1137/0916072.  Google Scholar

[6]

F. Casas, N. Crouseilles, E. Faou and M. Mehrenberger, High-order Hamiltonian splitting for Vlasov--Poisson equations, Numer. Math., 135 (2017), 769-801.  doi: 10.1007/s00211-016-0816-z.  Google Scholar

[7]

C. Cheng and G. Knorr, The integration of the Vlasov equation in configuration space, J. Comput. Phys., 22 (1976), 330-351.  doi: 10.2172/4200114.  Google Scholar

[8]

J. M. Connors, J. W. Banks, J. A. Hittinger and C. S. Woodward, Quantification of errors for operator-split advection--diffusion calculations, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., 272 (2014), 181-197.  doi: 10.1016/j.cma.2014.01.005.  Google Scholar

[9]

N. Crouseilles, L. Einkemmer and E. Faou, A Hamiltonian splitting for the Vlasov--Maxwell system, J. Comput. Phys., 283 (2015), 224-240.  doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2014.11.029.  Google Scholar

[10]

N. Crouseilles, L. Einkemmer and E. Faou, An asymptotic preserving scheme for the relativistic Vlasov--Maxwell equations in the classical limit, Comput. Phys. Commun., 209 (2016), 13-26.  doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2016.08.001.  Google Scholar

[11]

C. N. Dawson and M. F. Wheeler, Time-splitting methods for advection-diffusion-reaction equations arising in contaminant transport, In R. O'Malley, editor, Proceedings of ICIAM 91 (Washington, DC, 1991), pages 71-82. SIAM, Philadelphia, 1992.  Google Scholar

[12]

S. Descombes, Convergence of a splitting method of high order for reaction-diffusion systems, Math. Comp., 70 (2001), 1481-1501.   Google Scholar

[13]

L. Einkemmer and A. Ostermann, Convergence analysis of Strang splitting for Vlasov-type equations, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 52 (2014), 140-155.  doi: 10.1137/130918599.  Google Scholar

[14]

L. Einkemmer and A. Ostermann, A splitting approach for the Kadomtsev--Petviashvili equation, J. Comput. Phys., 299 (2015), 716-730.  doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2015.07.024.  Google Scholar

[15]

L. Einkemmer and A. Ostermann, Overcoming order reduction in diffusion-reaction splitting. Part 1: Dirichlet boundary conditions, SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 37 (2015), A1577-A1592.  doi: 10.1137/140994204.  Google Scholar

[16]

L. Einkemmer and A. Ostermann, Overcoming order reduction in diffusion-reaction splitting. Part 2: Oblique boundary conditions, SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 38 (2016), A3741-A3757.  doi: 10.1137/16M1056250.  Google Scholar

[17]

E. Faou, Geometric Numerical Integration and Schrödinger Equations, European Mathematical Society, Zürich, 2012.  Google Scholar

[18]

A. Gerisch and J. G. Verwer, Operator splitting and approximate factorization for taxis-diffusion-reaction models, Appl. Numer. Math., 42 (2002), 159-176.  doi: 10.1016/S0168-9274(01)00148-9.  Google Scholar

[19]

V. Grandgirard, M. Brunetti, P. Bertrand, N. Besse, X. Garbet, P. Ghendrih, G. Manfredi, Y. Sarazin, O. Sauter, E. Sonnendrücker, J. Vaclavik and L. Villard, A drift-kinetic Semi-Lagrangian 4D code for ion turbulence simulation, J. Comput. Phys., 217 (2006), 395-423.  doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2006.01.023.  Google Scholar

[20]

V. Grimm and M. Hochbruck, Error analysis of exponential integrators for oscillatory second-order differential equations, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen., 39 (2006), 5495-5507.  doi: 10.1088/0305-4470/39/19/S10.  Google Scholar

[21]

M. Hochbruck and C. Lubich, Exponential integrators for quantum-classical molecular dynamics, BIT, 39 (1999), 620-645.  doi: 10.1023/A:1022335122807.  Google Scholar

[22]

H. Holden, C. Lubich and N. Risebro, Operator splitting for partial differential equations with Burgers nonlinearity, Math. Comp., 82 (2013), 173-185.   Google Scholar

[23]

W. Hundsdorfer and J. G. Verwer, A note on splitting errors for advection-reaction equations, Appl. Numer. Math., 18 (1995), 191-199.  doi: 10.1016/0168-9274(95)00069-7.  Google Scholar

[24]

W. Hundsdorfer and J. G. Verwer, Numerical Solution of Time-Dependent Advection-Diffusion-Reaction Equations, Springer, Berlin, 2003.  Google Scholar

[25]

C. Klein and K. Roidot, Fourth order time-stepping for Kadomtsev--Petviashvili and Davey--Stewartson equations, SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 33 (2011), 3333-3356.  doi: 10.1137/100816663.  Google Scholar

[26]

R. J. LeVeque and J. Oliger, Numerical methods based on additive splittings for hyperbolic partial differential equations, Math. Comp., 40 (1983), 469-497.  doi: 10.1090/S0025-5718-1983-0689466-8.  Google Scholar

[27]

C. Lubich, On splitting methods for Schrödinger--Poisson and cubic nonlinear Schrödinger equations, Math. Comp., 77 (2008), 2141-2153.  doi: 10.1090/S0025-5718-08-02101-7.  Google Scholar

[28]

E. J. Spee, J. G. Verwer, P. M. deZeeuw, J. G. Blom and W. Hundsdorfer, A numerical study for global atmospheric transport-chemistry problems, Math. Comput. Simulat., 48 (1998), 177-204.   Google Scholar

Figure 1.  The global error in the infinity norm as a function of the time step size is shown. The error for TDBC2 and CEC2 is almost identical and therefore only the (erratic) error for TDBC2 is shown in the plot. In addition, the dashed lines are of slope $1$ and $2$, respectively. In all simulations equation (22) with $f(u) = {\rm{e}}^{u-1}$ is employed and the initial value $u(0, x) = 1+\sin \pi x + i \sin 2 \pi x$ is imposed. The space discretization is conducted by using the standard centered finite difference stencil with $200$ grid points and all simulations are conducted until $t = 0.19$
Figure Options

Download full-size image

Download as PowerPoint slide

Figure 2.  The local (full lines) and global errors (dashed lines) in the infinity norm are shown as a function of time for the second order CEC (top) and the third order CEC (bottom) corrections. The following step sizes are used (from top to bottom in this order in both cases): $1.5\cdot10^{-3}$ (yellow), $7.5\cdot10^{-4}$ (magenta), $3.75\cdot10^{-4}$ (cyan), $1.88\cdot10^{-4}$ (blue), $9.38\cdot10^{-5}$ (green), $4.69\cdot10^{-5}$ (red). In all simulations equation (22) with $f(u) = {\rm{e}}^{u-1}$ is employed and the initial value $u(0, x) = 1+\sin \pi x + i \sin 2 \pi x$ is imposed. The space discretization is conducted by using the standard centered finite difference stencil with $200$ grid points
Figure Options

Download full-size image

Download as PowerPoint slide

Table 1.  The local (at $t = 0$) and global errors using the unmodified Strang splitting applied to equation (19) are shown. The three different reaction terms indicated in the text are used. The space discretization is conducted by using the standard centered finite difference stencil with $200$ grid points. All problems are integrated until $t = 0.25$ and use the initial value $u(0, x) = 0$
Local error
$f(u, x)=u+1$ $f(u, x)=u+p(x)$ $f(u, x)=u+q(x)$
step size $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order
6.40e-02 3.14e-02 - 4.08e-04 - 4.54e-04 -
3.20e-02 1.54e-02 1.03 9.93e-05 2.04 6.13e-05 2.89
1.60e-02 7.51e-03 1.03 2.48e-05 2.00 7.72e-06 2.99
8.00e-03 3.64e-03 1.04 6.21e-06 2.00 9.69e-07 2.99
4.00e-03 1.75e-03 1.06 1.55e-06 2.00 1.22e-07 2.99
2.00e-03 8.24e-04 1.08 3.88e-07 2.00 1.54e-08 2.99
Global error
$f(u, x)=u+1$ $f(u, x)=u+p(x)$ $f(u, x)=u+q(x)$
step size $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order
6.40e-02 3.15e-02 - 6.75e-04 - 9.66e-04 -
3.20e-02 1.54e-02 1.03 1.71e-04 1.98 2.41e-04 2.00
1.60e-02 7.52e-03 1.03 4.34e-05 1.98 6.01e-05 2.00
8.00e-03 3.65e-03 1.04 1.09e-05 1.99 1.50e-05 2.00
4.00e-03 1.75e-03 1.06 2.75e-06 1.99 3.76e-06 2.00
2.00e-03 8.29e-04 1.08 6.91e-07 1.99 9.40e-07 2.00
Table Options

Download as excel

Local error
$f(u, x)=u+1$ $f(u, x)=u+p(x)$ $f(u, x)=u+q(x)$
step size $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order
6.40e-02 3.14e-02 - 4.08e-04 - 4.54e-04 -
3.20e-02 1.54e-02 1.03 9.93e-05 2.04 6.13e-05 2.89
1.60e-02 7.51e-03 1.03 2.48e-05 2.00 7.72e-06 2.99
8.00e-03 3.64e-03 1.04 6.21e-06 2.00 9.69e-07 2.99
4.00e-03 1.75e-03 1.06 1.55e-06 2.00 1.22e-07 2.99
2.00e-03 8.24e-04 1.08 3.88e-07 2.00 1.54e-08 2.99
Global error
$f(u, x)=u+1$ $f(u, x)=u+p(x)$ $f(u, x)=u+q(x)$
step size $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order
6.40e-02 3.15e-02 - 6.75e-04 - 9.66e-04 -
3.20e-02 1.54e-02 1.03 1.71e-04 1.98 2.41e-04 2.00
1.60e-02 7.52e-03 1.03 4.34e-05 1.98 6.01e-05 2.00
8.00e-03 3.65e-03 1.04 1.09e-05 1.99 1.50e-05 2.00
4.00e-03 1.75e-03 1.06 2.75e-06 1.99 3.76e-06 2.00
2.00e-03 8.29e-04 1.08 6.91e-07 1.99 9.40e-07 2.00
Table 2.  The local (at $t = 0$) and global errors for the unmodified Strang splitting as well as the second order TDBC and CEC corrected Strang splitting applied to equation (19) with $f(u) = {\rm{e}}^{u-1}$ are shown. The space discretization is conducted by using the standard centered finite difference stencil with $200$ grid points. All problems are integrated until $t = 0.25$ and use the initial value $u(0, x) = \sin \pi x$
Local error
unmodified TDBC CEC
step size $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order
1.60e-02 7.49e-03 - 1.25e-04 - 1.06e-04 -
8.00e-03 3.64e-03 1.04 3.25e-05 1.94 2.76e-05 1.94
4.00e-03 1.75e-03 1.06 8.17e-06 1.99 6.91e-06 2.00
2.00e-03 8.24e-04 1.08 2.04e-06 2.00 1.73e-06 2.00
1.00e-03 3.79e-04 1.12 5.13e-07 2.00 4.31e-07 2.00
5.00e-04 1.68e-04 1.18 1.27e-07 2.01 1.07e-07 2.00
Global error
unmodified TDBC CEC
step size $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order
1.60e-02 7.52e-03 - 3.13e-05 - 4.15e-05 -
8.00e-03 3.65e-03 1.04 7.72e-06 2.02 1.04e-05 2.00
4.00e-03 1.75e-03 1.06 1.91e-06 2.02 2.60e-06 2.00
2.00e-03 8.29e-04 1.08 4.69e-07 2.02 6.49e-07 2.00
1.00e-03 3.82e-04 1.12 1.15e-07 2.03 1.62e-07 2.00
5.00e-04 1.70e-04 1.17 2.81e-08 2.03 4.06e-08 2.00
Table Options

Download as excel

Local error
unmodified TDBC CEC
step size $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order
1.60e-02 7.49e-03 - 1.25e-04 - 1.06e-04 -
8.00e-03 3.64e-03 1.04 3.25e-05 1.94 2.76e-05 1.94
4.00e-03 1.75e-03 1.06 8.17e-06 1.99 6.91e-06 2.00
2.00e-03 8.24e-04 1.08 2.04e-06 2.00 1.73e-06 2.00
1.00e-03 3.79e-04 1.12 5.13e-07 2.00 4.31e-07 2.00
5.00e-04 1.68e-04 1.18 1.27e-07 2.01 1.07e-07 2.00
Global error
unmodified TDBC CEC
step size $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order
1.60e-02 7.52e-03 - 3.13e-05 - 4.15e-05 -
8.00e-03 3.65e-03 1.04 7.72e-06 2.02 1.04e-05 2.00
4.00e-03 1.75e-03 1.06 1.91e-06 2.02 2.60e-06 2.00
2.00e-03 8.29e-04 1.08 4.69e-07 2.02 6.49e-07 2.00
1.00e-03 3.82e-04 1.12 1.15e-07 2.03 1.62e-07 2.00
5.00e-04 1.70e-04 1.17 2.81e-08 2.03 4.06e-08 2.00
Table 3.  The local (at $t = 0$) and global errors for the unmodified Strang splitting as well as the third order TDBC and CEC corrected Strang splitting applied to equation (19) with $f(u) = {\rm{e}}^{u-1}$ are shown. The space discretization is conducted by using the standard centered finite difference stencil with $200$ grid points. All problems are integrated until $t = 0.25$ and use the initial value $u(0, x) = \sin \pi x$
Local error
unmodified TDBC CEC
step size $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order
1.60e-02 7.49e-03 - 1.71e-04 - 8.81e-05 -
8.00e-03 3.64e-03 1.04 1.86e-05 3.20 1.44e-05 2.61
4.00e-03 1.75e-03 1.06 2.29e-06 3.02 2.11e-06 2.77
2.00e-03 8.24e-04 1.08 3.11e-07 2.88 2.87e-07 2.88
1.00e-03 3.79e-04 1.12 4.06e-08 2.94 3.75e-08 2.94
5.00e-04 1.68e-04 1.18 5.18e-09 2.97 4.80e-09 2.97
Global error
unmodified TDBC CEC
step size $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order
1.60e-02 7.52e-03 - 2.32e-04 - 6.85e-05 -
8.00e-03 3.65e-03 1.04 3.30e-05 2.81 1.67e-05 2.04
4.00e-03 1.75e-03 1.06 5.89e-06 2.49 4.11e-06 2.02
2.00e-03 8.29e-04 1.08 1.22e-06 2.27 1.02e-06 2.01
1.00e-03 3.82e-04 1.12 2.77e-07 2.14 2.54e-07 2.00
5.00e-04 1.70e-04 1.17 6.59e-08 2.07 6.34e-08 2.00
Table Options

Download as excel

Local error
unmodified TDBC CEC
step size $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order
1.60e-02 7.49e-03 - 1.71e-04 - 8.81e-05 -
8.00e-03 3.64e-03 1.04 1.86e-05 3.20 1.44e-05 2.61
4.00e-03 1.75e-03 1.06 2.29e-06 3.02 2.11e-06 2.77
2.00e-03 8.24e-04 1.08 3.11e-07 2.88 2.87e-07 2.88
1.00e-03 3.79e-04 1.12 4.06e-08 2.94 3.75e-08 2.94
5.00e-04 1.68e-04 1.18 5.18e-09 2.97 4.80e-09 2.97
Global error
unmodified TDBC CEC
step size $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order
1.60e-02 7.52e-03 - 2.32e-04 - 6.85e-05 -
8.00e-03 3.65e-03 1.04 3.30e-05 2.81 1.67e-05 2.04
4.00e-03 1.75e-03 1.06 5.89e-06 2.49 4.11e-06 2.02
2.00e-03 8.29e-04 1.08 1.22e-06 2.27 1.02e-06 2.01
1.00e-03 3.82e-04 1.12 2.77e-07 2.14 2.54e-07 2.00
5.00e-04 1.70e-04 1.17 6.59e-08 2.07 6.34e-08 2.00
Table 4.  The local (at $t = 0$) and global errors using the unmodified Strang splitting applied to equation (20) are shown for the three different reaction terms indicated in the table. The space discretization is conducted by using a second order upwind finite difference stencil with $10^3$ grid points. All problems are integrated until $t = 1.9$ and use the initial value $u(0, x) = 0$
Local error
$f(u, x)=u+1$ $f(u, x)=u+x$ $f(u, x)=u+x^2$
step size $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order
2.40e-01 1.26e-01 - 7.70e-03 - 2.41e-03 -
1.20e-01 6.08e-02 1.05 1.84e-03 2.07 2.94e-04 3.04
6.00e-02 2.94e-02 1.05 4.44e-04 2.05 3.63e-05 3.02
3.00e-02 1.41e-02 1.06 1.06e-04 2.06 4.51e-06 3.01
1.50e-02 6.53e-03 1.11 2.47e-05 2.10 5.62e-07 3.00
7.50e-03 2.76e-03 1.24 5.45e-06 2.18 6.98e-08 3.01
Global error
$f(u, x)=u+1$ $f(u, x)=u+x$ $f(u, x)=u+x^2$
step size $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order
2.40e-01 1.25e-01 - 1.11e-02 - 1.14e-02 -
1.20e-01 5.98e-02 1.07 2.16e-03 2.36 2.92e-03 1.96
6.00e-02 2.85e-02 1.07 4.44e-04 2.28 7.32e-04 1.99
3.00e-02 1.31e-02 1.12 1.06e-04 2.06 1.83e-04 2.00
1.50e-02 5.54e-03 1.24 2.55e-05 2.06 4.56e-05 2.00
7.50e-03 1.94e-03 1.51 6.37e-06 2.00 1.14e-05 2.00
Table Options

Download as excel

Local error
$f(u, x)=u+1$ $f(u, x)=u+x$ $f(u, x)=u+x^2$
step size $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order
2.40e-01 1.26e-01 - 7.70e-03 - 2.41e-03 -
1.20e-01 6.08e-02 1.05 1.84e-03 2.07 2.94e-04 3.04
6.00e-02 2.94e-02 1.05 4.44e-04 2.05 3.63e-05 3.02
3.00e-02 1.41e-02 1.06 1.06e-04 2.06 4.51e-06 3.01
1.50e-02 6.53e-03 1.11 2.47e-05 2.10 5.62e-07 3.00
7.50e-03 2.76e-03 1.24 5.45e-06 2.18 6.98e-08 3.01
Global error
$f(u, x)=u+1$ $f(u, x)=u+x$ $f(u, x)=u+x^2$
step size $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order
2.40e-01 1.25e-01 - 1.11e-02 - 1.14e-02 -
1.20e-01 5.98e-02 1.07 2.16e-03 2.36 2.92e-03 1.96
6.00e-02 2.85e-02 1.07 4.44e-04 2.28 7.32e-04 1.99
3.00e-02 1.31e-02 1.12 1.06e-04 2.06 1.83e-04 2.00
1.50e-02 5.54e-03 1.24 2.55e-05 2.06 4.56e-05 2.00
7.50e-03 1.94e-03 1.51 6.37e-06 2.00 1.14e-05 2.00
Table 5.  The local (at $t = 0$) and global errors for the unmodified Strang splitting as well as the second order TDBC and CEC corrected Strang splitting applied to equation (21) with $f(u) = {\rm{e}}^{u-1}$ are shown. The space discretization is conducted by using a second order upwind finite difference stencil with $500$ grid points. All problems are integrated until $t = 1.9$ and use the initial value $u(0, x) = 1+x$
Local error
unmodified TDBC CEC
step size $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order
2.40e-01 1.25e-01 - 1.51e-02 - 8.80e-03 -
1.20e-01 5.98e-02 1.07 2.14e-03 2.82 1.93e-03 2.19
6.00e-02 2.84e-02 1.07 4.73e-04 2.18 4.42e-04 2.13
3.00e-02 1.31e-02 1.12 1.15e-04 2.04 1.01e-04 2.13
1.50e-02 5.53e-03 1.24 2.84e-05 2.02 2.20e-05 2.19
7.50e-03 1.89e-03 1.55 6.91e-06 2.04 4.68e-06 2.24
Global error
unmodified TDBC CEC
step size $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order
2.40e-01 3.73e-01 - 1.09e-01 - 2.59e-02 -
1.20e-01 9.07e-02 2.04 3.56e-02 1.62 4.72e-03 2.46
6.00e-02 2.84e-02 1.67 1.02e-02 1.80 1.30e-03 1.86
3.00e-02 1.31e-02 1.12 2.74e-03 1.90 4.15e-04 1.65
1.50e-02 5.54e-03 1.24 7.07e-04 1.95 1.16e-04 1.83
7.50e-03 1.94e-03 1.51 1.80e-04 1.98 3.08e-05 1.92
Table Options

Download as excel

Local error
unmodified TDBC CEC
step size $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order
2.40e-01 1.25e-01 - 1.51e-02 - 8.80e-03 -
1.20e-01 5.98e-02 1.07 2.14e-03 2.82 1.93e-03 2.19
6.00e-02 2.84e-02 1.07 4.73e-04 2.18 4.42e-04 2.13
3.00e-02 1.31e-02 1.12 1.15e-04 2.04 1.01e-04 2.13
1.50e-02 5.53e-03 1.24 2.84e-05 2.02 2.20e-05 2.19
7.50e-03 1.89e-03 1.55 6.91e-06 2.04 4.68e-06 2.24
Global error
unmodified TDBC CEC
step size $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order
2.40e-01 3.73e-01 - 1.09e-01 - 2.59e-02 -
1.20e-01 9.07e-02 2.04 3.56e-02 1.62 4.72e-03 2.46
6.00e-02 2.84e-02 1.67 1.02e-02 1.80 1.30e-03 1.86
3.00e-02 1.31e-02 1.12 2.74e-03 1.90 4.15e-04 1.65
1.50e-02 5.54e-03 1.24 7.07e-04 1.95 1.16e-04 1.83
7.50e-03 1.94e-03 1.51 1.80e-04 1.98 3.08e-05 1.92
Table 6.  The local (at $t = 0$) and global errors for the unmodified Strang splitting as well as the third order TDBC and CEC corrected Strang splitting applied to equation (21) with $f(u) = {\rm{e}}^{u-1}$ are shown. The space discretization is conducted by using a second order upwind finite difference stencil with $500$ grid points. All problems are integrated until $t = 1.9$ and use the initial value $u(0, x) = 1+x$
Local error
unmodified TDBC CEC
step size $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order
2.40e-01 1.25e-01 - 1.51e-02 - 1.39e-02 -
1.20e-01 5.98e-02 1.07 2.14e-03 2.82 1.61e-03 3.11
6.00e-02 2.84e-02 1.07 2.87e-04 2.90 1.90e-04 3.09
3.00e-02 1.31e-02 1.12 3.72e-05 2.95 2.28e-05 3.06
1.50e-02 5.53e-03 1.24 4.73e-06 2.97 2.79e-06 3.03
7.50e-03 1.89e-03 1.55 5.98e-07 2.99 3.44e-07 3.02
Global error
unmodified TDBC CEC
step size $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order
2.40e-01 3.73e-01 - 5.46e-02 - 4.65e-02 -
1.20e-01 9.07e-02 2.04 2.04e-02 1.42 1.08e-02 2.10
6.00e-02 2.84e-02 1.67 6.25e-03 1.70 2.57e-03 2.08
3.00e-02 1.31e-02 1.12 1.73e-03 1.85 6.24e-04 2.05
1.50e-02 5.54e-03 1.24 4.55e-04 1.93 1.53e-04 2.03
7.50e-03 1.94e-03 1.51 1.17e-04 1.96 3.79e-05 2.01
Table Options

Download as excel

Local error
unmodified TDBC CEC
step size $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order
2.40e-01 1.25e-01 - 1.51e-02 - 1.39e-02 -
1.20e-01 5.98e-02 1.07 2.14e-03 2.82 1.61e-03 3.11
6.00e-02 2.84e-02 1.07 2.87e-04 2.90 1.90e-04 3.09
3.00e-02 1.31e-02 1.12 3.72e-05 2.95 2.28e-05 3.06
1.50e-02 5.53e-03 1.24 4.73e-06 2.97 2.79e-06 3.03
7.50e-03 1.89e-03 1.55 5.98e-07 2.99 3.44e-07 3.02
Global error
unmodified TDBC CEC
step size $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order
2.40e-01 3.73e-01 - 5.46e-02 - 4.65e-02 -
1.20e-01 9.07e-02 2.04 2.04e-02 1.42 1.08e-02 2.10
6.00e-02 2.84e-02 1.67 6.25e-03 1.70 2.57e-03 2.08
3.00e-02 1.31e-02 1.12 1.73e-03 1.85 6.24e-04 2.05
1.50e-02 5.54e-03 1.24 4.55e-04 1.93 1.53e-04 2.03
7.50e-03 1.94e-03 1.51 1.17e-04 1.96 3.79e-05 2.01
Table 7.  The local (at $t = 0$) and global errors computed in $[\tfrac{1}{2}, 1]$ for the unmodified Strang splitting as well as the second order TDBC and CEC corrected Strang splitting applied to equation (21) with $f(u) = {\rm{e}}^{u-1}$ are shown. The space discretization is conducted by using a second order upwind finite difference stencil with $500$ grid points. All problems are integrated until $t = 1.9$ and use the initial value $u(0, x) = 1+x$
Local error
unmodified TDBC CEC
step size $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order
2.40e-01 1.44e-02 - 1.44e-02 - 7.19e-03 -
1.20e-01 2.05e-03 2.81 2.05e-03 2.81 9.33e-04 2.95
6.00e-02 2.75e-04 2.90 2.75e-04 2.90 1.24e-04 2.91
3.00e-02 3.58e-05 2.95 3.58e-05 2.95 1.62e-05 2.94
1.50e-02 4.56e-06 2.97 4.56e-06 2.97 2.08e-06 2.96
7.50e-03 5.76e-07 2.99 5.76e-07 2.99 2.63e-07 2.98
Global error
unmodified TDBC CEC
step size $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order
2.40e-01 3.73e-01 - 1.02e-01 - 2.59e-02 -
1.20e-01 9.07e-02 2.04 3.31e-02 1.63 4.72e-03 2.46
6.00e-02 1.26e-02 2.85 9.46e-03 1.81 9.71e-04 2.28
3.00e-02 1.87e-03 2.75 2.52e-03 1.91 3.16e-04 1.62
1.50e-02 4.88e-04 1.94 6.51e-04 1.95 8.99e-05 1.81
7.50e-03 1.25e-04 1.97 1.65e-04 1.98 2.39e-05 1.91
Table Options

Download as excel

Local error
unmodified TDBC CEC
step size $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order
2.40e-01 1.44e-02 - 1.44e-02 - 7.19e-03 -
1.20e-01 2.05e-03 2.81 2.05e-03 2.81 9.33e-04 2.95
6.00e-02 2.75e-04 2.90 2.75e-04 2.90 1.24e-04 2.91
3.00e-02 3.58e-05 2.95 3.58e-05 2.95 1.62e-05 2.94
1.50e-02 4.56e-06 2.97 4.56e-06 2.97 2.08e-06 2.96
7.50e-03 5.76e-07 2.99 5.76e-07 2.99 2.63e-07 2.98
Global error
unmodified TDBC CEC
step size $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order
2.40e-01 3.73e-01 - 1.02e-01 - 2.59e-02 -
1.20e-01 9.07e-02 2.04 3.31e-02 1.63 4.72e-03 2.46
6.00e-02 1.26e-02 2.85 9.46e-03 1.81 9.71e-04 2.28
3.00e-02 1.87e-03 2.75 2.52e-03 1.91 3.16e-04 1.62
1.50e-02 4.88e-04 1.94 6.51e-04 1.95 8.99e-05 1.81
7.50e-03 1.25e-04 1.97 1.65e-04 1.98 2.39e-05 1.91
Table 8.  The accuracy (at times $t = 0.5$ and $t = 2$) of the best TDBC approach (this can be the second or third order correction) divided by the accuracy of the best CEC approach is shown for five different reactions $f_1 = \sqrt{u+1}$, $f_2 = {\rm{e}}^{u/5}$, $f_3 = \log(2+u)$, $f_4 = 1/2+\text{arsinhpt}{u}$, $f_5 = \cos u$ and five different advection coefficients $a_1 = 1+\sin x$, $a_2 = \sin(\pi x/2)+2/5$, $a_3 = 3/2-x$, $a_4 = 1/5+{\rm{e}}^{-50 (x-1/2)^2}$, $a_5 = 1 + \sin(2\pi x)/5$. The number in parentheses shows the gain in accuracy achieved by going from CEC2 to CEC3 and from TDBC2 to TDBC3, respectively (values larger than one indicate a gain in accuracy, while values smaller than one indicate a loss in accuracy). The space discretization is conducted by using a second order upwind finite difference stencil with $500$ grid points
t=0.5
$a_1$ $a_2$ $a_3$ $a_4$ $a_5$
$f_1$ 27.6(6.9, 0.8) 4.5(1.2, 0.9) 27.3(23, 1.5) 14.1(7.2, 2.2) 4.0(1.0, 0.7)
$f_2$ 18.2(1.5, 0.9) 15.4(1.3, 1.0) 14.1(7.2, 2.2) 9.4(0.2, 1.0) 8.2(0.9, 0.7)
$f_3$ 22.7(5.7, 0.8) 4.6(1.3, 0.9) 15.8(13.7, 1.5) 4.0(0.3, 1.0) 4.2(1.1, 0.7)
$f_4$ 5.7(3.1, 0.6) 2.2(1.4, 0.7) 1.5(3.3, 0.6) 1.7(0.4, 1.0) 2.7(1.4, 0.6)
$f_5$ 2.4(1.0, 0.7) 2.4(1.0, 0.9) 2.5(1.0, 1.7) 3.7(1.0, 1.0) 3.4(1.0, 0.7)
$t=2$
$a_1$ $a_2$ $a_3$ $a_4$ $a_5$
$f_1$ 21.6(2.9, 0.6) 5.7(0.8, 0.4) 35.3(24.7, 1.3) 2.6(0.8, 0.5) 3.9(1.9, 0.4)
$f_2$ 11.1(1.4, 0.5) 19.3(3.8, 0.3) 15.5(7.1, 2.0) 0.9(0.9, 0.2) 6.0(1.6, 0.5)
$f_3$ 18.6(2.6, 0.6) 5.7(0.8, 0.4) 19.3(13.9, 1.3) 2.5(1.1, 0.4) 3.8(1.9, 0.4)
$f_4$ 6.8(1.4, 0.6) 8.8(1.8, 0.5) 1.2(29, 0.4) 4.0(2.7, 0.2) 2.1(1.5, 0.4)
$f_5$ 1.7(1.0, 0.4) 1.0(1.0, 0.2) 2.6(1.0, 1.6) 0.8(1.0, 0.5) 2.1(1.0, 0.5)
Table Options

Download as excel

t=0.5
$a_1$ $a_2$ $a_3$ $a_4$ $a_5$
$f_1$ 27.6(6.9, 0.8) 4.5(1.2, 0.9) 27.3(23, 1.5) 14.1(7.2, 2.2) 4.0(1.0, 0.7)
$f_2$ 18.2(1.5, 0.9) 15.4(1.3, 1.0) 14.1(7.2, 2.2) 9.4(0.2, 1.0) 8.2(0.9, 0.7)
$f_3$ 22.7(5.7, 0.8) 4.6(1.3, 0.9) 15.8(13.7, 1.5) 4.0(0.3, 1.0) 4.2(1.1, 0.7)
$f_4$ 5.7(3.1, 0.6) 2.2(1.4, 0.7) 1.5(3.3, 0.6) 1.7(0.4, 1.0) 2.7(1.4, 0.6)
$f_5$ 2.4(1.0, 0.7) 2.4(1.0, 0.9) 2.5(1.0, 1.7) 3.7(1.0, 1.0) 3.4(1.0, 0.7)
$t=2$
$a_1$ $a_2$ $a_3$ $a_4$ $a_5$
$f_1$ 21.6(2.9, 0.6) 5.7(0.8, 0.4) 35.3(24.7, 1.3) 2.6(0.8, 0.5) 3.9(1.9, 0.4)
$f_2$ 11.1(1.4, 0.5) 19.3(3.8, 0.3) 15.5(7.1, 2.0) 0.9(0.9, 0.2) 6.0(1.6, 0.5)
$f_3$ 18.6(2.6, 0.6) 5.7(0.8, 0.4) 19.3(13.9, 1.3) 2.5(1.1, 0.4) 3.8(1.9, 0.4)
$f_4$ 6.8(1.4, 0.6) 8.8(1.8, 0.5) 1.2(29, 0.4) 4.0(2.7, 0.2) 2.1(1.5, 0.4)
$f_5$ 1.7(1.0, 0.4) 1.0(1.0, 0.2) 2.6(1.0, 1.6) 0.8(1.0, 0.5) 2.1(1.0, 0.5)
Table 9.  The local (at $t = 0$) and global errors for the unmodified Strang splitting as well as the second order TDBC and CEC corrected Strang splitting applied to equation (22) with $f(u) = {\rm{e}}^{u-1}$ are shown. The space discretization is conducted by using the standard centered finite difference stencil with $200$ grid points. All problems are integrated until $t = 0.19$ and use the initial value $u(0, x) = 1+\sin \pi x + i \sin 2 \pi x$
Local error
unmodified TDBC CEC
step size $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order
1.20e-02 5.84e-03 - 1.48e-03 - 1.50e-03 -
6.00e-03 2.79e-03 1.07 2.72e-04 2.45 2.70e-04 2.47
3.00e-03 1.23e-03 1.19 3.49e-05 2.96 3.47e-05 2.96
1.50e-03 6.38e-04 0.94 8.77e-06 1.99 8.65e-06 2.00
7.50e-04 2.95e-04 1.11 2.11e-06 2.05 2.08e-06 2.05
3.75e-04 1.30e-04 1.18 5.15e-07 2.04 5.07e-07 2.04
Global error
unmodified TDBC CEC
step size $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order
1.20e-02 2.02e-02 - 2.35e-03 1.89 2.33e-03 -
6.00e-03 1.18e-02 0.78 5.32e-04 2.14 5.25e-04 2.15
3.00e-03 4.77e-03 1.30 1.09e-04 2.28 1.08e-04 2.29
1.50e-03 1.04e-03 2.20 4.85e-05 1.17 4.82e-05 1.16
7.50e-04 6.09e-04 0.77 1.82e-05 1.41 1.82e-05 1.41
3.75e-04 2.20e-04 1.47 1.44e-05 0.34 1.44e-05 0.34
1.88e-04 9.37e-05 1.23 4.70e-07 4.94 4.66e-07 4.95
Table Options

Download as excel

Local error
unmodified TDBC CEC
step size $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order
1.20e-02 5.84e-03 - 1.48e-03 - 1.50e-03 -
6.00e-03 2.79e-03 1.07 2.72e-04 2.45 2.70e-04 2.47
3.00e-03 1.23e-03 1.19 3.49e-05 2.96 3.47e-05 2.96
1.50e-03 6.38e-04 0.94 8.77e-06 1.99 8.65e-06 2.00
7.50e-04 2.95e-04 1.11 2.11e-06 2.05 2.08e-06 2.05
3.75e-04 1.30e-04 1.18 5.15e-07 2.04 5.07e-07 2.04
Global error
unmodified TDBC CEC
step size $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order
1.20e-02 2.02e-02 - 2.35e-03 1.89 2.33e-03 -
6.00e-03 1.18e-02 0.78 5.32e-04 2.14 5.25e-04 2.15
3.00e-03 4.77e-03 1.30 1.09e-04 2.28 1.08e-04 2.29
1.50e-03 1.04e-03 2.20 4.85e-05 1.17 4.82e-05 1.16
7.50e-04 6.09e-04 0.77 1.82e-05 1.41 1.82e-05 1.41
3.75e-04 2.20e-04 1.47 1.44e-05 0.34 1.44e-05 0.34
1.88e-04 9.37e-05 1.23 4.70e-07 4.94 4.66e-07 4.95
Table 10.  The local (at $t = 0$) and global errors for the unmodified Strang splitting as well as the third order TDBC and CEC corrected Strang splitting applied to equation (22) with $f(u) = {\rm{e}}^{u-1}$ are shown. The space discretization is conducted by using the standard centered finite difference stencil with $200$ grid points. All problems are integrated until $t = 0.19$ and use the initial value $u(0, x) = 1+\sin \pi x + i \sin 2 \pi x$
Local error
unmodified TDBC CEC
step size $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order
1.20e-02 5.84e-03 - 1.51e-03 - 1.53e-03 -
6.00e-03 2.79e-03 1.07 2.48e-04 2.61 2.38e-04 2.69
3.00e-03 1.23e-03 1.19 2.92e-05 3.09 2.81e-05 3.08
1.50e-03 6.38e-04 0.94 3.21e-06 3.18 3.14e-06 3.16
7.50e-04 2.95e-04 1.11 3.82e-07 3.07 3.72e-07 3.08
3.75e-04 1.30e-04 1.18 4.65e-08 3.04 4.64e-08 3.00
Global error
unmodified TDBC CEC
step size $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order
1.20e-02 2.02e-02 - 9.02e-03 2.09 7.91e-03 -
6.00e-03 1.18e-02 0.78 1.84e-03 2.29 1.73e-03 2.19
3.00e-03 4.77e-03 1.30 4.16e-04 2.15 4.12e-04 2.07
1.50e-03 1.04e-03 2.20 9.85e-05 2.08 9.97e-05 2.05
7.50e-04 6.09e-04 0.77 2.42e-05 2.03 2.44e-05 2.03
3.75e-04 2.20e-04 1.47 6.01e-06 2.01 6.01e-06 2.02
1.88e-04 9.37e-05 1.23 1.45e-06 2.06 1.50e-06 2.00
Table Options

Download as excel

Local error
unmodified TDBC CEC
step size $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order
1.20e-02 5.84e-03 - 1.51e-03 - 1.53e-03 -
6.00e-03 2.79e-03 1.07 2.48e-04 2.61 2.38e-04 2.69
3.00e-03 1.23e-03 1.19 2.92e-05 3.09 2.81e-05 3.08
1.50e-03 6.38e-04 0.94 3.21e-06 3.18 3.14e-06 3.16
7.50e-04 2.95e-04 1.11 3.82e-07 3.07 3.72e-07 3.08
3.75e-04 1.30e-04 1.18 4.65e-08 3.04 4.64e-08 3.00
Global error
unmodified TDBC CEC
step size $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order $l^{\infty}$ error order
1.20e-02 2.02e-02 - 9.02e-03 2.09 7.91e-03 -
6.00e-03 1.18e-02 0.78 1.84e-03 2.29 1.73e-03 2.19
3.00e-03 4.77e-03 1.30 4.16e-04 2.15 4.12e-04 2.07
1.50e-03 1.04e-03 2.20 9.85e-05 2.08 9.97e-05 2.05
7.50e-04 6.09e-04 0.77 2.42e-05 2.03 2.44e-05 2.03
3.75e-04 2.20e-04 1.47 6.01e-06 2.01 6.01e-06 2.02
1.88e-04 9.37e-05 1.23 1.45e-06 2.06 1.50e-06 2.00
[1]

Joseph A. Connolly, Neville J. Ford. Comparison of numerical methods for fractional differential equations. Communications on Pure & Applied Analysis, 2006, 5 (2) : 289-307. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2006.5.289
[2]

Mohamed Badreddine, Thomas K. DeLillo, Saman Sahraei. A Comparison of some numerical conformal mapping methods for simply and multiply connected domains. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2019, 24 (1) : 55-82. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2018100
[3]

Asif Yokus, Mehmet Yavuz. Novel comparison of numerical and analytical methods for fractional Burger–Fisher equation. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2021, 14 (7) : 2591-2606. doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020258
[4]

R.G. Duran, J.I. Etcheverry, J.D. Rossi. Numerical approximation of a parabolic problem with a nonlinear boundary condition. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems, 1998, 4 (3) : 497-506. doi: 10.3934/dcds.1998.4.497
[5]

Jean-François Coulombel, Frédéric Lagoutière. The Neumann numerical boundary condition for transport equations. Kinetic & Related Models, 2020, 13 (1) : 1-32. doi: 10.3934/krm.2020001
[6]

Dorina Mitrea, Marius Mitrea, Sylvie Monniaux. The Poisson problem for the exterior derivative operator with Dirichlet boundary condition in nonsmooth domains. Communications on Pure & Applied Analysis, 2008, 7 (6) : 1295-1333. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2008.7.1295
[7]

Yueding Yuan, Zhiming Guo, Moxun Tang. A nonlocal diffusion population model with age structure and Dirichlet boundary condition. Communications on Pure & Applied Analysis, 2015, 14 (5) : 2095-2115. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2015.14.2095
[8]

Khadijah Sharaf. A perturbation result for a critical elliptic equation with zero Dirichlet boundary condition. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems, 2017, 37 (3) : 1691-1706. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2017070
[9]

Qiang Long, Xue Wu, Changzhi Wu. Non-dominated sorting methods for multi-objective optimization: Review and numerical comparison. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2021, 17 (2) : 1001-1023. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2020009
[10]

G. Acosta, Julián Fernández Bonder, P. Groisman, J.D. Rossi. Numerical approximation of a parabolic problem with a nonlinear boundary condition in several space dimensions. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2002, 2 (2) : 279-294. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2002.2.279
[11]

Pablo Amster, Colin Rogers. On a Ermakov-Painlevé II reduction in three-ion electrodiffusion. A Dirichlet boundary value problem. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems, 2015, 35 (8) : 3277-3292. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2015.35.3277
[12]

Larissa V. Fardigola. Transformation operators in controllability problems for the wave equations with variable coefficients on a half-axis controlled by the Dirichlet boundary condition. Mathematical Control & Related Fields, 2015, 5 (1) : 31-53. doi: 10.3934/mcrf.2015.5.31
[13]

Lan Zeng, Guoxi Ni, Yingying Li. Low Mach number limit of strong solutions for 3-D full compressible MHD equations with Dirichlet boundary condition. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2019, 24 (10) : 5503-5522. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2019068
[14]

Jian Zhai, Zhihui Cai. $\Gamma$-convergence with Dirichlet boundary condition and Landau-Lifshitz functional for thin film. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2009, 11 (4) : 1071-1085. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2009.11.1071
[15]

Zhiming Guo, Zhi-Chun Yang, Xingfu Zou. Existence and uniqueness of positive solution to a non-local differential equation with homogeneous Dirichlet boundary condition---A non-monotone case. Communications on Pure & Applied Analysis, 2012, 11 (5) : 1825-1838. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2012.11.1825
[16]

Tomáš Bodnár, Philippe Fraunié, Petr Knobloch, Hynek Řezníček. Numerical evaluation of artificial boundary condition for wall-bounded stably stratified flows. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2021, 14 (3) : 785-801. doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020333
[17]

Md. Masum Murshed, Kouta Futai, Masato Kimura, Hirofumi Notsu. Theoretical and numerical studies for energy estimates of the shallow water equations with a transmission boundary condition. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2021, 14 (3) : 1063-1078. doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020230
[18]

Yu Guo, Xiao-Bao Shu, Qianbao Yin. Existence of solutions for first-order Hamiltonian random impulsive differential equations with Dirichlet boundary conditions. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2021  doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2021236
[19]

Inácio Andruski-Guimarães, Anselmo Chaves-Neto. Estimation in polytomous logistic model: Comparison of methods. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2009, 5 (2) : 239-252. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2009.5.239
[20]

Shenglan Xie, Maoan Han, Peng Zhu. A posteriori error estimate of weak Galerkin fem for second order elliptic problem with mixed boundary condition. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2021, 26 (10) : 5217-5226. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020340

2020 Impact Factor: 1.327

Tools

Metrics

  • PDF downloads (206)
  • HTML views (454)
  • Cited by (1)

Other articles
by authors

[Back to Top]

Copyright © 2021 American Institute of Mathematical Sciences | Privacy Policy