关于 PIC 方法的一维静电测试问题

Pub Date : 2024-02-10 DOI:10.1515/rnam-2024-0002
Eugene V. Chizhonkov
{"title":"关于 PIC 方法的一维静电测试问题","authors":"Eugene V. Chizhonkov","doi":"10.1515/rnam-2024-0002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A test problem for the ‘particle-in-cell’ method is proposed which allows one to check individual errors on each stage of numerical implementation of the method. General testing usually controls only total (final) error. Using the test problem, we analyze errors of a difference method of MacCormack type and the CIC method being the most popular version of the ‘particle-in-cell’ method. It is shown that the CIC method having also the second formal order of accuracy is seriously inferior to the difference method under the same given error and same grid parameters. In particular, the results of the particle method lose their sense after approximately one calculation period, although the time interval of confidence in simulation data for the difference method is practically unlimited. The testing method proposed here is suitable for an arbitrary one-dimensional version of the ‘particle-in-cell’ method, and it allows one not only to compare numerical implementations of individual stages with each other, but also to verify available theoretical results.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On a 1D-electrostatic test problem for the PIC method\",\"authors\":\"Eugene V. Chizhonkov\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/rnam-2024-0002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A test problem for the ‘particle-in-cell’ method is proposed which allows one to check individual errors on each stage of numerical implementation of the method. General testing usually controls only total (final) error. Using the test problem, we analyze errors of a difference method of MacCormack type and the CIC method being the most popular version of the ‘particle-in-cell’ method. It is shown that the CIC method having also the second formal order of accuracy is seriously inferior to the difference method under the same given error and same grid parameters. In particular, the results of the particle method lose their sense after approximately one calculation period, although the time interval of confidence in simulation data for the difference method is practically unlimited. The testing method proposed here is suitable for an arbitrary one-dimensional version of the ‘particle-in-cell’ method, and it allows one not only to compare numerical implementations of individual stages with each other, but also to verify available theoretical results.\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"100\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/rnam-2024-0002\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"100","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/rnam-2024-0002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

提出了一个 "粒子入胞 "方法的测试问题,可以检查该方法数值实施过程中每个阶段的个别误差。一般测试通常只控制总(最终)误差。利用该测试问题,我们分析了 MacCormack 类型差分法和 CIC 方法(最流行的 "粒子入胞 "方法版本)的误差。结果表明,在给定误差和网格参数相同的情况下,精度也达到第二形式阶的 CIC 方法严重逊色于差分法。特别是,粒子法的结果在大约一个计算周期后就失去了意义,而差分法的模拟数据置信时间间隔实际上是无限的。本文提出的测试方法适用于 "微粒入胞 "方法的任意一维版本,不仅可以比较各个阶段的数值实现,还可以验证现有的理论结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享
查看原文
On a 1D-electrostatic test problem for the PIC method
A test problem for the ‘particle-in-cell’ method is proposed which allows one to check individual errors on each stage of numerical implementation of the method. General testing usually controls only total (final) error. Using the test problem, we analyze errors of a difference method of MacCormack type and the CIC method being the most popular version of the ‘particle-in-cell’ method. It is shown that the CIC method having also the second formal order of accuracy is seriously inferior to the difference method under the same given error and same grid parameters. In particular, the results of the particle method lose their sense after approximately one calculation period, although the time interval of confidence in simulation data for the difference method is practically unlimited. The testing method proposed here is suitable for an arbitrary one-dimensional version of the ‘particle-in-cell’ method, and it allows one not only to compare numerical implementations of individual stages with each other, but also to verify available theoretical results.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信