Mathematicadocument.docVIP

Using Mathematica to Solve PDEs This semester we have derived the governing equations for a number of different processes including: 1-D Steady ground water flow (Laplace equation; no internal sinks/sources) ( 1 ) 1-D Steady ground water flow with internal sources/sinks (Poisson Equation): ( 2 ) 1-D Transient ground water flow: ( 3 ) 1-D Heat (Diffusion) equation: ( 4 ) 1-D CDE for solute transport under steady flow: ( 5 ) We went on to develop algebraic finite difference expressions for each of these equations and solved them for a variety of boundary and initial conditions using either relaxation of a system of equations (the 2-D Laplace and Poisson equations) or explicit finite difference approaches. There is great value in being able to derive the finite difference expressions; you are in a position to write your own computer code to solve these and similar equations, which arise in many fields of endeavor. There are also new tools that allow you bypass this step; you provide the PDE and the computer uses (hopefully appropriate) numerical methods to provide a solution. Mathematica, Matlab, Maple, Mathcad: Why would I want to use one of those? There are at least 2 reasons you should know how to use one of more of these tools: It will allow you to solve equations you can’t easily solve otherwise, including complicated derivatives and integrals (and PDEs of course) It will allow you to learn more Mathematics without the drudgery of doing everything longhand, and mathematics, after all, may be the only truth in the world Bad things The syntax of the input can be cryptic and takes a while to learn. As with most everything else in life, you work from examples and only learn the parts you need (by trial and error) for the task at hand. Methods I’m going to focus on Mathematica here because I wanted to learn it; I had previous experience with all of the others, though not in solving PDEs. I also thought it would be the best for this purpose. Now I