Mathematical and Computational Analysis in the Simulation of Iterative Algorithms for Solving Partial Differential Equations

Authors

  • Saugadi Saugadi Universitas Madako Tolitoli
  • Armadi Chairunnas Badan Riset dan Inovasi Regional Provinsi Sulawesi Tenggara
  • Bhadrappa Haralayya Lingaraj Appa Engineering College Bidar

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.62951/ijamc.v1i3.272

Keywords:

Computational Efficiency, Finite Difference Method, Iterative Methods, Partial Differential Equations, Solver Optimization

Abstract

This research explores the use of iterative methods in conjunction with the Finite Difference Method (FDM) for solving partial differential equations (PDE). The central challenge addressed is the computational inefficiency and slow convergence that often arise when utilizing traditional numerical methods, particularly in large-scale systems. The study aims to develop a more efficient iterative approach to solve PDEs by minimizing computational time while ensuring the stability of the obtained solutions. The primary methods proposed include iterative solvers such as Gauss-Seidel and Successive Over-Relaxation (SOR), which are applied to numerical solutions derived from FDM. The research demonstrates that iterative methods, especially SOR, achieve faster convergence with fewer iterations compared to conventional methods like the Finite Element Method (FEM), which tends to be slower and more resource-intensive for large-scale problems. The study highlights the advantages of iterative solvers in efficiently handling large, sparse linear systems and reducing computational costs. In addition, it shows that these methods are capable of providing stable solutions, thereby maintaining accuracy with significantly lower computational effort. The results suggest that iterative methods, when applied in combination with FDM, offer a practical and scalable solution for solving complex PDEs. These methods are especially beneficial in engineering and theoretical physics applications where large-scale simulations are prevalent. The study concludes with recommendations for future research, which should focus on further optimizing solver parameters, exploring hybrid approaches, and extending the methods to more complex PDEs with non-linearities or irregular geometries. By doing so, these techniques could contribute to even more efficient and practical solutions for real-world applications.

References

Ahmad, N., & Singh, V. P. (2021). Study of stability criterion for some iterative methods for solving non-linear equations. South East Asian Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences, 17(1), 461-470. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85109003628&partnerID=40&md5=9cd3da5c5b8367ec25176b42c9560070

Bagchi, B. K. (2019). Partial differential equations for mathematical physicists (pp. 1-224). https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429276477

Bansal, S. (2024). Solving physical system problems using partial differential equations. In Optimization Techniques and Associated Applications (pp. 14-22). https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003407386-2

Barbu, T. (2019). Introduction. In Signals and Communication Technology (pp. 1-6). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93006-0_1

Boukarou, A., Zennir, K., & Georgiev, S. G. (2024). Partial differential equations in Sobolev and analytic spaces (pp. 1-620). https://doi.org/10.1142/9789811298516

Domnikov, P. A., & Koshkina, Y. I. (2021). Comparison of iterative and direct solvers for finite element linear systems in 3D induction logging. In Proceedings of the 2021 15th International Scientific-Technical Conference on Actual Problems of Electronic Instrument Engineering (APEIE 2021) (pp. 555–558). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/APEIE52976.2021.9647670

Draelants, D., Kłosiewicz, P., Broeckhove, J., & Vanroose, W. (2015). Solving general auxin transport models with a numerical continuation toolbox in Python: Pynct. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 9271 (pp. 211-225). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26916-0_12

Ganzha, V. G., & Vorozhtsov, E. V. (2017). Numerical solutions for partial differential equations: Problem solving using Mathematica (pp. 1-350). https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203745311

Hencken, K., & Christen, T. (2014). Boundaries of knowledge: Knowledge of boundary conditions is crucial for reliable simulations. ABB Review, 2, 68-73.

Honarvar, M., Rohling, R., & Salcudean, S. E. (2016). A comparison of direct and iterative finite element inversion techniques in dynamic elastography. Physics in Medicine and Biology, 61(8), 3026–3048. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/61/8/3026

Jaraczewski, M., & Sobczyk, T. (2019). Numerical tests of novel finite difference operator for solving 1D boundary-value problems. 2019 15th Selected Issues of Electrical Engineering and Electronics, WZEE 2019, art. no. 8979825. https://doi.org/10.1109/WZEE48932.2019.8979825

Langer, U., & Neumüller, M. (2018). Direct and iterative solvers. In CISM International Centre for Mechanical Sciences, Courses and Lectures, 579 (pp. 205-251). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59038-7_5

López Pouso, Ó., & Jumaniyazov, N. (2021). Direct versus iterative methods for forward-backward diffusion equations: Numerical comparisons. SeMA Journal, 78(3), 271-286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40324-020-00236-9

Pagani, A., Petrolo, M., & Carrera, E. (2014). Comparison of dynamic stiffness and finite element methods in dynamics and aeroelastic response. In 8th Australasian Congress on Applied Mechanics (ACAM 2014) (pp. 565–573). https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84934344279&partnerID=40&md5=8d5dbe2f9c569359012070182d74fcba

Pawłowski, S., Plewako, J., & Grodzki, P. (2017). Efficiency comparison of the fundamental solutions iterative method and finite element method in the analysis of electrostatic problems. Przeglad Elektrotechniczny, 93(12), 135–138. https://doi.org/10.15199/48.2017.12.34

Pearson, J. W., & Pestana, J. (2020). Preconditioners for Krylov subspace methods: An overview. GAMM Mitteilungen, 43(4), art. no. e202000015. https://doi.org/10.1002/gamm.202000015

Prihantoro, R., Sutarno, D., & Nurhasan. (2016). The use of direct solver in vector finite element modeling for calculating 3-D magnetotelluric responses. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 739(1), 012110. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/739/1/012110

Rivière, T. (2022). Exploring the unknown: The work of Louis Nirenberg on partial differential equations. EMS Surveys in Mathematical Sciences, 9(1), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.4171/EMSS/52

Song, P., Yang, T., Ji, Y., Wang, Z., Yang, Z., Chen, L., & Chen, L. (2017). A comparison of Fourier spectral iterative perturbation method and finite element method in solving phase-field equilibrium equations. Communications in Computational Physics, 21(5), 1325–1349. https://doi.org/10.4208/cicp.OA-2016-0114

Wole, A., Lobo, M., & Ginting, K. B. r. (2021). The application of finite difference method on 2-D heat conductivity problem. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2017(1), art. no. 012009. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2017/1/012009

Zhang, Y., Xu, H., & He, Y. (2015). On two-level Oseen iterative methods for the 2D/3D steady Navier-Stokes equations. Computers and Fluids, 107, 89-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compfluid.2014.10.017

Zuo, S., Zhang, Y., Doñoro, D. G., Zhao, X., & Liu, Q. (2019). A novel finite element mesh truncation technology accelerated by parallel multilevel fast multipole algorithm and its applications. Applied Computational Electromagnetics Society Journal, 34(11), 1671–1678. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85077942920&partnerID=40&md5=410194b3fd100fc3c07b4061d9db54e9

Downloads

Published

2024-07-31

How to Cite

Saugadi Saugadi, Armadi Chairunnas, & Bhadrappa Haralayya. (2024). Mathematical and Computational Analysis in the Simulation of Iterative Algorithms for Solving Partial Differential Equations. International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computing, 1(3), 08–13. https://doi.org/10.62951/ijamc.v1i3.272

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.