1 

2 
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 
3 
% 
4 
% Copyright (c) 20032010 by University of Queensland 
5 
% Earth Systems Science Computational Center (ESSCC) 
6 
% http://www.uq.edu.au/esscc 
7 
% 
8 
% Primary Business: Queensland, Australia 
9 
% Licensed under the Open Software License version 3.0 
10 
% http://www.opensource.org/licenses/osl3.0.php 
11 
% 
12 
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 
13 

14 

15 

16 
The acoustic wave equation governs the propagation of pressure waves. Wave 
17 
types that obey this law tend to travel in liquids or gases where shear waves 
18 
or longitudinal style wave motion is not possible. An obvious example is sound 
19 
waves. 
20 

21 
The acoustic wave equation is defined as; 
22 
\begin{equation} 
23 
\nabla ^2 p  \frac{1}{c^2} \frac{\partial ^2 p}{\partial t^2} = 0 
24 
\label{eqn:acswave} 
25 
\end{equation} 
26 
where $p$ is the pressure, $t$ is the time and $c$ is the wave velocity. 
27 

28 
\section{The Laplacian in \esc} 
29 
The Laplacian opperator which can be written as $\Delta$ or $\nabla^2$ is 
30 
calculated via the divergence of the gradient of the object, which is in this 
31 
example $p$. Thus we can write; 
32 
\begin{equation} 
33 
\nabla^2 p = \nabla \cdot \nabla p = 
34 
\sum\hackscore{i}^n 
35 
\frac{\partial^2 p}{\partial x^2\hackscore{i}} 
36 
\label{eqn:laplacian} 
37 
\end{equation} 
38 
For the two dimensional case in Cartesian coordinates \refEq{eqn:laplacian} 
39 
becomes; 
40 
\begin{equation} 
41 
\nabla^2 p = \frac{\partial^2 p}{\partial x^2} 
42 
+ \frac{\partial^2 p}{\partial y^2} 
43 
\end{equation} 
44 

45 
In \esc the Laplacian is calculated using the divergence representation and the 
46 
intrinsic functions \textit{grad()} and \textit{trace()}. The fucntion 
47 
\textit{grad{}} will return the spatial gradients of an object. 
48 
For a rank 0 solution, this is of the form; 
49 
\begin{equation} 
50 
\nabla p = \left[ 
51 
\frac{\partial p}{\partial x \hackscore{0}}, 
52 
\frac{\partial p}{\partial x \hackscore{1}} 
53 
\right] 
54 
\label{eqn:grad} 
55 
\end{equation} 
56 
Larger ranked solution objects will return gradient tensors. For example, a 
57 
pressure field which acts in the directions $p \hackscore{0}$ and $p 
58 
\hackscore{1}$ would return; 
59 
\begin{equation} 
60 
\nabla p = \begin{bmatrix} 
61 
\frac{\partial p \hackscore{0}}{\partial x \hackscore{0}} & 
62 
\frac{\partial p \hackscore{1}}{\partial x \hackscore{0}} \\ 
63 
\frac{\partial p \hackscore{0}}{\partial x \hackscore{1}} & 
64 
\frac{\partial p \hackscore{1}}{\partial x \hackscore{1}} 
65 
\end{bmatrix} 
66 
\label{eqn:gradrank1} 
67 
\end{equation} 
68 

69 
\refEq{eqn:grad} corresponds to the Linear PDE general form value 
70 
$X$. Notice however that the general form contains the term $X 
71 
\hackscore{i,j}$\footnote{This is the first derivative in the $j^{th}$ 
72 
direction for the $i^{th}$ component of the solution.}, 
73 
hence for a rank 0 object there is no need to do more than calculate the 
74 
gradient and submit it to the solver. In the case of the rank 1 or greater 
75 
object, it is nesscary to calculate the trace also. This is the sum of the 
76 
diagonal in \refeq{eqn:gradrank1}. 
77 

78 
Thus when solving for equations containing the Laplacian one of two things must 
79 
be completed. If the object \verb p is less than rank 1 the gradient is 
80 
calculated via; 
81 
\begin{python} 
82 
gradient=grad(p) 
83 
\end{python} 
84 
and if the object is greater thank or equal to a rank 1 tensor, the trace of 
85 
the gradient is calculated. 
86 
\begin{python} 
87 
gradient=trace(grad(p)) 
88 
\end{python} 
89 
These valuse can then be submitted to the PDE solver via the general form term 
90 
$X$. The Laplacian is then computed in the solution process by taking the 
91 
divergence of $X$. 
92 

93 
Note, if you are unsure about the rank of your tensor, the \textit{getRank} 
94 
command will return the rank of the PDE object. 
95 
\begin{python} 
96 
rank = p.getRank() 
97 
\end{python} 
98 

99 

100 
\section{Numerical Solution Stability} \label{sec:nsstab} 
101 
Unfortunately, the wave equation belongs to a class of equations called 
102 
\textbf{stiff} PDEs. These types of equations can be difficult to solve 
103 
numerically as they tend to oscilate about the exact solution which can 
104 
eventually lead to a catastrophic failure in the solution. To counter this 
105 
problem, explicitly stable schemes like 
106 
the backwards Euler method are required. There are two variables which must be 
107 
considered for stability when numerically trying to solve the wave equation. 
108 
For linear media, the two variables are related via; 
109 
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:freqvel} 
110 
f=\frac{v}{\lambda} 
111 
\end{equation} 
112 
The velocity $v$ that a wave travels in a medium is an important variable. For 
113 
stability the analytical wave must not propagate faster than the numerical wave 
114 
is able to, and in general, needs to be much slower than the numerical wave. 
115 
For example, a line 100m long is discretised into 1m intervals or 101 nodes. If 
116 
a wave enters with a propagation velocity of 100m/s then the travel time for 
117 
the wave between each node will be 0.01 seconds. The time step, must therefore 
118 
be significantly less than this. Of the order $10E4$ would be appropriate. 
119 

120 
The wave frequency content also plays a part in numerical stability. The 
121 
nyquistsampling theorem states that a signals bandwidth content will be 
122 
accurately represented when an equispaced sampling rate $f \hackscore{n}$ is 
123 
equal to or greater than twice the maximum frequency of the signal 
124 
$f\hackscore{s}$, or; 
125 
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:samptheorem} 
126 
f\hackscore{n} \geqslant f\hackscore{s} 
127 
\end{equation} 
128 
For example a 50Hz signal will require a sampling rate greater than 100Hz or 
129 
one sample every 0.01 seconds. The wave equation relies on a spatial frequency, 
130 
thus the sampling theorem in this case applies to the solution mesh spacing. In 
131 
this way, the frequency content of the input signal directly affects the time 
132 
discretisation of the problem. 
133 

134 
To accurately model the wave equation with high resolutions and velocities 
135 
means that very fine spatial and time discretisation is necessary for most 
136 
problems. 
137 
This requirement makes the wave equation arduous to 
138 
solve numerically due to the large number of time iterations required in each 
139 
solution. Models with very high velocities and frequencies will be the worst 
140 
affected by this problem. 
141 

142 
\section{Displacement Solution} 
143 
\sslist{example07a.py} 
144 

145 
We begin the solution to this PDE with the centred difference formula for the 
146 
second derivative; 
147 
\begin{equation} 
148 
f''(x) \approx \frac{f(x+h  2f(x) + f(xh)}{h^2} 
149 
\label{eqn:centdiff} 
150 
\end{equation} 
151 
substituting \refEq{eqn:centdiff} for $\frac{\partial ^2 p }{\partial t ^2}$ 
152 
in \refEq{eqn:acswave}; 
153 
\begin{equation} 
154 
\nabla ^2 p  \frac{1}{c^2h^2} \left[p\hackscore{(t+1)}  2p\hackscore{(t)} + 
155 
p\hackscore{(t1)} \right] 
156 
= 0 
157 
\label{eqn:waveu} 
158 
\end{equation} 
159 
Rearranging for $p_{(t+1)}$; 
160 
\begin{equation} 
161 
p\hackscore{(t+1)} = c^2 h^2 \nabla ^2 p\hackscore{(t)} +2p\hackscore{(t)}  
162 
p\hackscore{(t1)} 
163 
\end{equation} 
164 
this can be compared with the general form of the \modLPDE module and it 
165 
becomes clear that $D=1$, $X\hackscore{i,j}=c^2 h^2 \nabla ^2 p_{(t)}$ and 
166 
$Y=2p_{(t)}  p_{(t1)}$. 
167 

168 
The solution script is similar to others that we have created in previous 
169 
chapters. The general steps are; 
170 
\begin{enumerate} 
171 
\item The necessary libraries must be imported. 
172 
\item The domain needs to be defined. 
173 
\item The time iteration and control parameters need to be defined. 
174 
\item The PDE is initialised with source and boundary conditions. 
175 
\item The time loop is started and the PDE is solved at consecutive time steps. 
176 
\item All or select solutions are saved to file for visualisation lated on. 
177 
\end{enumerate} 
178 

179 
Parts of the script which warrant more attention are the definition of the 
180 
source, visualising the source, the solution time loop and the VTK data export. 
181 

182 
\subsection{Pressure Sources} 
183 
As the pressure is a scalar, one need only define the pressure for two 
184 
time steps prior to the start of the solution loop. Two known solutions are 
185 
required because the wave equation contains a double partial derivative with 
186 
respect to time. This is often a good opportunity to introduce a source to the 
187 
solution. This model has the source located at it's centre. The source should 
188 
be smooth and cover a number of samples to satisfy the frequency stability 
189 
criterion. Small sources will generate high frequency signals. Here, the source 
190 
is defined by a cosine function. 
191 
\begin{python} 
192 
U0=0.01 # amplitude of point source 
193 
xc=[500,500] #location of point source 
194 
# define small radius around point xc 
195 
src_radius = 30 
196 
# for first two time steps 
197 
u=U0*(cos(length(xxc)*3.1415/src_radius)+1)*\ 
198 
whereNegative(length(xxc)src_radius) 
199 
u_m1=u 
200 
\end{python} 
201 
When using a rectangular domain 
202 

203 
\subsection{Visualising the Source} 
204 
There are two options for visualising the source. The first is to export the 
205 
initial conditions of the model to VTK, which can be interpreted as a scalar 
206 
suface in mayavi. The second is to take a cross section of the model. 
207 

208 
For the later, we will require the \textit{Locator} function. 
209 
First \verb Locator must be imported; 
210 
\begin{python} 
211 
from esys.escript.pdetools import Locator 
212 
\end{python} 
213 
The function can then be used on the domain to locate the nearest domain node 
214 
to the point or points of interest. 
215 

216 
It is now necessary to build a list of $(x,y)$ locations that specify where are 
217 
model slice will go. This is easily implemeted with a loop; 
218 
\begin{python} 
219 
cut_loc=[] 
220 
src_cut=[] 
221 
for i in range(ndx/2ndx/10,ndx/2+ndx/10): 
222 
cut_loc.append(xstep*i) 
223 
src_cut.append([xstep*i,xc[1]]) 
224 
\end{python} 
225 
We then submit the output to \verb Locator and finally return the appropriate 
226 
values using the \verb getValue function. 
227 
\begin{python} 
228 
src=Locator(mydomain,src_cut) 
229 
src_cut=src.getValue(u) 
230 
\end{python} 
231 
It is then a trivial task to plot and save the output using \mpl. 
232 
\begin{python} 
233 
pl.plot(cut_loc,src_cut) 
234 
pl.axis([xc[0]src_radius*3,xc[0]+src_radius*3,0.,2*U0]) 
235 
pl.savefig(os.path.join(savepath,"source_line.png")) 
236 
\end{python} 
237 
\begin{figure}[h] 
238 
\centering 
239 
FIXME PLEASE! 
240 
% \includegraphics[width=6in]{figures/sourceline.png} 
241 
\caption{Cross section of the source function.} 
242 
\label{fig:cxsource} 
243 
\end{figure} 
244 

245 

246 
\subsection{Point Monitoring} 
247 
In the more general case where the solution mesh is irregular or specific 
248 
locations need to be monitored, it is simple enough to use the \textit{Locator} 
249 
function. 
250 
\begin{python} 
251 
rec=Locator(mydomain,[250.,250.]) 
252 
\end{python} 
253 
When the solution \verb u is updated we can extract the value at that point 
254 
via; 
255 
\begin{python} 
256 
u_rec=rec.getValue(u) 
257 
\end{python} 
258 
For consecutive time steps one can record the values from \verb u_rec in an 
259 
array initialised as \verb u_rec0=[] with; 
260 
\begin{python} 
261 
u_rec0.append(rec.getValue(u)) 
262 
\end{python} 
263 

264 
It can be useful to monitor the value at a single or multiple individual points 
265 
in the model during the modelling process. This is done using 
266 
the \verb Locator function. 
267 

268 

269 
\section{Acceleration Solution} 
270 
\sslist{example07b.py} 
271 

272 
An alternative method is to solve for the acceleration $\frac{\partial ^2 
273 
p}{\partial t^2}$ directly, and derive the displacement solution from the 
274 
PDE solution. \refEq{eqn:waveu} is thus modified; 
275 
\begin{equation} 
276 
\nabla ^2 p  \frac{1}{c^2} a = 0 
277 
\label{eqn:wavea} 
278 
\end{equation} 
279 
and can be solved directly with $Y=0$ and $X=c^2 \nabla ^2 p\hackscore{(t)}$. 
280 
After each iteration the displacement is reevaluated via; 
281 
\begin{equation} 
282 
p\hackscore{(t+1)}=2p\hackscore{(t)}  p\hackscore{(t1)} + h^2a 
283 
\end{equation} 
284 

285 
\subsection{Lumping} 
286 
For \esc, the acceleration solution is prefered as it allows the use of matrix 
287 
lumping. Lumping or mass lumping as it is sometimes known, is the process of 
288 
aggressively approximating the density elements of a mass matrix into the main 
289 
diagonal. The use of Lumping is motivaed by the simplicity of diagonal matrix 
290 
inversion. As a result, Lumping can significantly reduce the computational 
291 
requirements of a problem. Care should be taken however, as this 
292 
function can only be used when the $A$, $B$ and $C$ coefficients of the 
293 
general form are zero. 
294 

295 
To turn lumping on in \esc one can use the command; 
296 
\begin{python} 
297 
mypde.getSolverOptions().setSolverMethod(mypde.getSolverOptions().LUMPING) 
298 
\end{python} 
299 
It is also possible to check if lumping is set using; 
300 
\begin{python} 
301 
print mypde.isUsingLumping() 
302 
\end{python} 
303 

304 
\section{Stability Investigation} 
305 
It is now prudent to investigate the stability limitations of this problem. 
306 
First, we let the frequency content of the source be very small. If we define 
307 
the source as a cosine input, than the wavlength of the input is equal to the 
308 
radius of the source. Let this value be 5 meters. Now, if the maximum velocity 
309 
of the model is $c=380.0ms^{1}$ then the source 
310 
frequency is $f\hackscore{r} = \frac{380.0}{5} = 76.0 Hz$. This is a worst case 
311 
scenario with a small source and the models maximum velocity. 
312 

313 
Furthermore, we know from \refSec{sec:nsstab}, that the spatial sampling 
314 
frequency must be at least twice this value to ensure stability. If we assume 
315 
the model mesh is a square equispaced grid, 
316 
then the sampling interval is the side length divided by the number of samples, 
317 
given by $\Delta x = \frac{1000.0m}{400} = 2.5m$ and the maximum sampling 
318 
frequency capable at this interval is 
319 
$f\hackscore{s}=\frac{380.0ms^{1}}{2.5m}=152Hz$ this is just equal to the 
320 
required rate satisfying \refeq{eqn:samptheorem}. 
321 

322 
\reffig{fig:ex07sampth} depicts three examples where the grid has been 
323 
undersampled, sampled correctly, and over sampled. The grids used had 
324 
200, 400 and 800 nodes per side respectively. Obviously, the oversampled grid 
325 
retains the best resolution of the modelled wave. 
326 

327 
The time step required for each of these examples is simply calculated from 
328 
the propagation requirement. For a maximum velocity of $380.0ms^{1}$, 
329 
\begin{subequations} 
330 
\begin{equation} 
331 
\Delta t \leq \frac{1000.0m}{200} \frac{1}{380.0} = 0.013s 
332 
\end{equation} 
333 
\begin{equation} 
334 
\Delta t \leq \frac{1000.0m}{400} \frac{1}{380.0} = 0.0065s 
335 
\end{equation} 
336 
\begin{equation} 
337 
\Delta t \leq \frac{1000.0m}{800} \frac{1}{380.0} = 0.0032s 
338 
\end{equation} 
339 
\end{subequations} 
340 
We can see, that for each doubling of the number of nodes in the mesh, we halve 
341 
the timestep. To illustrate the impact this has, consider our model. If the 
342 
source is placed at the center, it is $500m$ from the nearest boundary. With a 
343 
velocity of $380.0ms^{1}$ it will take $\approx1.3s$ for the wavefront to 
344 
reach that boundary. In each case, this equates to $100$, $200$ and $400$ time 
345 
steps. This is again, only a best case scenario, for true stability these time 
346 
values may need to be halved and possibly havled again. 
347 

348 
\begin{figure}[ht] 
349 
\centering 
350 
\subfigure[Undersampled Example]{ 
351 
FIX ME! 
352 
%\includegraphics[width=3in]{figures/ex07usamp.png} 
353 
\label{fig:ex07usamp} 
354 
} 
355 
\subfigure[Just sampled Example]{ 
356 
FIX ME! 
357 
%\includegraphics[width=3in]{figures/ex07jsamp.png} 
358 
\label{fig:ex07jsamp} 
359 
} 
360 
\subfigure[Over sampled Example]{ 
361 
FIX ME! 
362 
%\includegraphics[width=3in]{figures/ex07nsamp.png} 
363 
\label{fig:ex07nsamp} 
364 
} 
365 
\label{fig:ex07sampth} 
366 
\caption{Sampling Theorem example for stability 
367 
investigation.} 
368 
\end{figure} 
369 

370 

371 

372 

373 
