4.5 Article

Convergence of consistent and inconsistent schemes for fractional diffusion problems with boundaries

Journal

ADVANCES IN COMPUTATIONAL MATHEMATICS
Volume 48, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10444-022-09984-w

Keywords

Fractional derivatives; Finite difference methods; Error bounds; Convergence analysis

Funding

  1. Centre for Mathematics of the University of Coimbra - Portuguese Government through FCT/MCTES [UIDB/00324/2020]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study analyzes an implicit numerical method for a fractional diffusion problem with an absorbing boundary. The presence of the boundary is shown to change the properties of the scheme, affecting its consistency and convergence. The authors establish that the accuracy of the method can be lower than second-order in the presence of the boundary, and the convergence rate can be higher than the order of accuracy. In some cases, the second-order accuracy can still be achieved.
An implicit numerical method for a fractional diffusion problem in the presence of an absorbing boundary is analyzed. The discretization chosen for the spatial fractional differential operator is known to be second-order accurate, when the problem is defined in the real line. The main purpose of this work is to show how the presence of the boundary can change the properties of the scheme, namely its consistency and convergence. We establish that the order of accuracy of the spatial truncation error can be lower than two in the presence of the boundary and in some cases we have inconsistency, depending not necessarily on the regularity of the solution but on the values of its derivatives at the boundary. Furthermore, we prove the rate of convergence will be higher than the order of accuracy given by the consistency analysis and sometimes we can recover the order two. In particular, the convergence is achieved for some of the inconsistent cases.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available