Poisson PDE solver on a disked shaped domain with finite difference method using matlab - matlab

Question

For my studies I had to write a PDE solver for the Poisson equation on a disc shaped domain using the finite difference method.
I already passed the Lab exercise. There is one issue in my code I couldn't fix. Function fun1 with the boundary value problem gun2 is somehow oscillating at the boundary. When I use fun2 everything seems fine...
Both functions use at the boundary gun2. What is the problem?
function z = fun1(x,y)
r = sqrt(x.^2+y.^2);
z = zeros(size(x));
if( r < 0.25)
z = -10^8*exp(1./(r.^2-1/16));
end
end
function z = fun2(x,y)
z = 100*sin(2*pi*x).*sin(2*pi*y);
end
function z = gun2(x,y)
z = x.^2+y.^2;
end
function [u,A] = poisson2(funame,guname,M)
if nargin < 3
M = 50;
end
%Mesh Grid Generation
h = 2/(M + 1);
x = -1:h:1;
y = -1:h:1;
[X,Y] = meshgrid(x,y);
CI = ((X.^2 +Y.^2) < 1);
%Boundary Elements
Sum= zeros(size(CI));
%Sum over the neighbours
for i = -1:1
Sum = Sum + circshift(CI,[i,0]) + circshift(CI,[0,i]) ;
end
%if sum of neighbours larger 3 -> inner note!
CI = (Sum > 3);
%else boundary
CB = (Sum < 3 & Sum ~= 0);
Sum= zeros(size(CI));
%Sum over the boundary neighbour nodes....
for i = -1:1
Sum = Sum + circshift(CB,[i,0]) + circshift(CB,[0,i]);
end
%If the sum is equal 2 -> Diagonal boundary
CB = CB + (Sum == 2 & CB == 0 & CI == 0);
%Converting X Y to polar coordinates
Phi = atan(Y./X);
%Converting Phi R back to cartesian coordinates, only at the boundarys
for j = 1:M+2
for i = 1:M+2
if (CB(i,j)~=0)
if j > (M+2)/2
sig = 1;
else
sig = -1;
end
X(i,j) = sig*1*cos(Phi(i,j));
Y(i,j) = sig*1*sin(Phi(i,j));
end
end
end
%Numberize the internal notes u1,u2,......,un
CI = CI.*reshape(cumsum(CI(:)),size(CI));
%Number of internal notes
Ni = nnz(CI);
f = zeros(Ni,1);
k = 1;
A = spalloc(Ni,Ni,5*Ni);
%Create matix A!
for j=2:M+1
for i =2:M+1
if(CI(i,j) ~= 0)
hN = h;hS = h; hW = h; hE = h;
f(k) = fun(X(i,j),Y(i,j));
if(CB(i+1,j) ~= 0)
hN = abs(1-sqrt(X(i,j)^2+Y(i,j)^2));
f(k) = f(k) + gun(X(i,j),Y(i+1,j))*2/(hN^2+hN*h);
A(k,CI(i-1,j)) = -2/(h^2+h*hN);
else
if(CB(i-1,j) ~= 0) %in negative y is a boundry
hS = abs(1-sqrt(X(i,j)^2+Y(i,j)^2));
f(k) = f(k) + gun(X(i,j),Y(i-1,j))*2/(hS^2+h*hS);
A(k,CI(i+1,j)) = -2/(h^2+h*hS);
else
A(k,CI(i-1,j)) = -1/h^2;
A(k,CI(i+1,j)) = -1/h^2;
end
end
if(CB(i,j+1) ~= 0)
hE = abs(1-sqrt(X(i,j)^2+Y(i,j)^2));
f(k) = f(k) + gun(X(i,j+1),Y(i,j))*2/(hE^2+hE*h);
A(k,CI(i,j-1)) = -2/(h^2+h*hE);
else
if(CB(i,j-1) ~= 0)
hW = abs(1-sqrt(X(i,j)^2+Y(i,j)^2));
f(k) = f(k) + gun(X(i,j-1),Y(i,j))*2/(hW^2+h*hW);
A(k,CI(i,j+1)) = -2/(h^2+h*hW);
else
A(k,CI(i,j-1)) = -1/h^2;
A(k,CI(i,j+1)) = -1/h^2;
end
end
A(k,k) = (2/(hE*hW)+2/(hN*hS));
k = k + 1;
end
end
end
%Solve linear system
u = A\f;
U = zeros(M+2,M+2);
p = 1;
%re-arange u
for j = 1:M+2
for i = 1:M+2
if ( CI(i,j) ~= 0)
U(i,j) = u(p);
p = p+1;
else
if ( CB(i,j) ~= 0)
U(i,j) = gun(X(i,j),Y(i,j));
else
U(i,j) = NaN;
end
end
end
end
surf(X,Y,U);
end

Answer 1

I'm keeping this answer short for now, but may extend when the question contains more info.
My first guess is that what you are seeing is just numerical errors. Looking at the scales of the two graphs, the peaks in the first graph are relatively small compared to the signal in the second graph. Maybe there is a similar issue in the second that is just not visible because the signal is much bigger. You could try to increase the number of nodes and observe what happens with the result.
You should always expect to see numerical errors in such simulations. It's only a matter of trying to get their magnitude as small as possible (or as small as needed).