Warning: foreach() argument must be of type array|object, bool given in /var/www/html/web/app/themes/studypress-core-theme/template-parts/header/mobile-offcanvas.php on line 20

What is a practical way of checking if the discretization error has been significant in calculations?

Short Answer

Expert verified
Answer: A practical way to check for discretization error is by performing calculations with varying discretization steps (e.g., different grid sizes or mesh resolutions) and comparing the results. If the error is significant, we would expect to see considerable differences in the results as we refine the discretization. Calculate the discretization ratio and the relative error between the coarser and finer discretizations. If the relative error is small or decreases as the discretization is refined, it is a good indication that the discretization error is not significant. If not, further refinement or analysis may be needed.

Step by step solution

01

Understand discretization error

Discretization error occurs when a continuous function is approximated by a discrete one. This is common in numerical methods, such as finite difference and finite element methods, where a continuous domain is split into discrete points or elements. The error is introduced when the discrete approximation does not capture the exact behavior of the continuous function.
02

Use multiple discretization steps

A practical way to check for discretization error is to perform calculations with varying discretization steps (e.g., different grid sizes or mesh resolutions) and then compare the results. If the error is significant, we would expect to see considerable differences in the results as we refine the discretization.
03

Compute the discretization ratio

Choose two different discretization steps and compute their ratio, typically denoted as \(r\). For example, if we use a grid size of \(h_1\) for the first simulation and \(h_2\) for the second, where \(h_2\) is a finer discretization, then the discretization ratio is \(r = \frac{h_1}{h_2}\).
04

Analyze the results

Compare the results obtained from the simulations with different discretization steps. This can be done by computing the relative error of the results, defined as \(\epsilon = \frac{|S_1 - S_2|}{|S_1|}\), where \(S_1\) and \(S_2\) are the solutions (or some measure of the solution) from the coarser and finer discretizations, respectively.
05

Evaluate the significance of the error

If the relative error is small or decreases as the discretization is refined, it is a good indication that the discretization error is not significant. However, if the relative error is large or does not decrease as the discretization is refined, it indicates that the discretization error may be significant, and further refinement or analysis of the model is needed.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with Vaia!

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

What is the cause of the discretization error? How does the global discretization error differ from the local discretization error?

A common annoyance in cars in winter months is the formation of fog on the glass surfaces that blocks the view. A practical way of solving this problem is to blow hot air or to attach electric resistance heaters to the inner surfaces. Consider the rear window of a car that consists of a \(0.4\)-cm-thick glass \(\left(k=0.84 \mathrm{~W} / \mathrm{m} \cdot \mathrm{K}\right.\) and \(\alpha=0.39 \times 10^{-6} \mathrm{~m}^{2} / \mathrm{s}\) ). Strip heater wires of negligible thickness are attached to the inner surface of the glass, \(4 \mathrm{~cm}\) apart. Each wire generates heat at a rate of $25 \mathrm{~W} / \mathrm{m}$ length. Initially the entire car, including its windows, is at the outdoor temperature of \(T_{o}=-3^{\circ} \mathrm{C}\). The heat transfer coefficients at the inner and outer surfaces of the glass can be taken to be \(h_{i}=6 \mathrm{~W} / \mathrm{m}^{2} \cdot \mathrm{K}\) and $h_{o}=20 \mathrm{~W} / \mathrm{m}^{2} \cdot \mathrm{K}$, respectively. Using the explicit finite difference method with a mesh size of $\Delta x=0.2 \mathrm{~cm}\( along the thickness and \)\Delta y=1 \mathrm{~cm}$ in the direction normal to the heater wires, determine the temperature distribution throughout the glass 15 min after the strip heaters are turned on. Also, determine the temperature distribution when steady conditions are reached.

Consider steady one-dimensional heat conduction in a pin fin of constant diameter \(D\) with constant thermal conductivity. The fin is losing heat by convection to the ambient air at \(T_{\infty}\) with a convection coefficient of \(h\), and by radiation to the surrounding surfaces at an average temperature of \(T_{\text {surr- }}\). The nodal network of the fin consists of nodes 0 (at the base), 1 (in the middle), and 2 (at the fin tip) with a uniform nodal spacing of \(\Delta x\). Using the energy balance approach, obtain the finite difference formulation of this problem to determine \(T_{1}\) and \(T_{2}\) for the case of specified temperature at the fin base and negligible heat transfer at the fin tip. All temperatures are in \({ }^{\circ} \mathrm{C}\).

The implicit method is unconditionally stable and thus any value of time step \(\Delta t\) can be used in the solution of transient heat conduction problems. To minimize the computation time, someone suggests using a very large value of \(\Delta t\) since there is no danger of instability. Do you agree with this suggestion? Explain.

A series of long stainless steel bolts (ASTM A437 B4B) are fastened into a metal plate with a thickness of \(4 \mathrm{~cm}\). The bolts have a thermal conductivity of \(23.9 \mathrm{~W} / \mathrm{m} \cdot \mathrm{K}\), a specific heat of \(460 \mathrm{~J} / \mathrm{kg} \cdot \mathrm{K}\), and a density of \(7.8 \mathrm{~g} / \mathrm{cm}^{3}\). For the metal plate, the specific heat, thermal conductivity, and density are $500 \mathrm{~J} / \mathrm{kg} \cdot \mathrm{K}, 16.3 \mathrm{~W} / \mathrm{m} \cdot \mathrm{K}\(, and \)8 \mathrm{~g} / \mathrm{cm}^{3}$, respectively. The upper surface of the plate is occasionally exposed to cryogenic fluid at \(-70^{\circ} \mathrm{C}\) with a convection heat transfer coefficient of $300 \mathrm{~W} / \mathrm{m}^{2} \cdot \mathrm{K}$. The lower surface of the plate is exposed to convection with air at \(10^{\circ} \mathrm{C}\) and a convection heat transfer coefficient of \(10 \mathrm{~W} / \mathrm{m}^{2}\). K. The bolts are fastened into the metal plate from the bottom surface, and the distance measured from the plate's upper surface to the bolt tips is \(1 \mathrm{~cm}\). The ASME Code for Process Piping limits the minimum suitable temperature for ASTM A437 B4B stainless steel bolt to \(-30^{\circ} \mathrm{C}\) (ASME B31.3-2014, Table A-2M). If the initial temperature of the plate is \(10^{\circ} \mathrm{C}\) and the plate's upper surface is exposed to the cryogenic fluid for \(9 \mathrm{~min}\), would the bolts fastened in the plate still comply with the ASME code? Using the explicit finite difference formulations with a uniform nodal spacing of \(\Delta x=1 \mathrm{~cm}\), determine the temperature at each node for the duration of the upper surface being exposed to the cryogenic fluid. Plot the nodal temperatures as a function of time.

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Physics Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.

Sign-up for free