Implicit boundary values

If we are simulating a reaction where Cq varies with time for all involved species then we would like to compute these accurately also. For simplicity, take again the case of chronopotentiometry, only one species being involved. The diffusion equation results, by the process described in Sect. 5.4.1, in system 5.129. To get Cq (which is needed to solve that system), we cannot simply add its diffusion-derived equation we need an anchor for it. This we get from the constant current or gradient G at U = 0. Again Eq. 5.124 is the key, expressed as Eq. 5.132. This yields Cq as a function of all other C and can then be substituted for in system 5.129. Then, Cq will adjust itself along with the whole profile. Without any special effort, Cq is found implicitly in the solution. This was developed by Pons (1981A). 

---

Electro chemists first investigated the Saul yev method in 1988 and 1989 [381,382], including GEM, and the incorporation of implicit boundary values was added later [144]. The result of these studies is broadly that the last of Larkin s options above, averaging LR and RL, is the best. This has about the same accuracy as Crank-Nicolson, and could be considered to be easier to program. The third option, alternating LR with RL, produces oscillations. 

Strictly, there is a sufficient number (3m) of equations for the 3m unknowns so the system of equations can be solved. In practice, one might well give up at this point - especially in view of the fact that, if derivative boundary conditions are involved (as in quasi reversible electron transfer, the rule rather than the exception), we would also need to bring in the implicit boundary value algorithm. 

The essence is that, if the concentration profile simulated is smooth (which it normally is), then the polynomials will be well behaved in between points and no such problems will be encountered. As is seen below, implicit boundary values can easily be accommodated, and by the use of spline collocation [179-181], homogeneous chemical reactions of very high rates can be simulated. This refers to the static placement of the points. Having, for example, the above sequence of points for five internal points, the point closest to the electrode is at 0.047. This will be seen, below, to be in fact further from the electrode than it seems, because of the way that distance X is normalised so that, for very fast reactions that lead to a thin reaction layer, there might not be any points within that layer. Spline collocation thus takes the reaction layer and places another polynomial within it, while the region further out has its own polynomial. The two polynomials are designed such that they join smoothly, both with the same gradient at the join. This will not be described further here. 

It is easy to see that changing the value of Ar produces a different V profile through the solution of the momentum equation. Then, in turn, different V profiles produce different u profiles through the solution of the continuity equation. It is possible to find a value of Ar such that the continuity equation is satisfied at the top boundary and the known axial-velocity boundary conditions is satisfied, that is, uj = f/iniet However, it is inefficient to carry out such an iteration explicitly. Rather, it it is more efficient to implement an implicit boundary condition. 

The initial conditions are satisfied by setting the value of every point in the concentration grid to 1 before the simulation begins. We must now consider how the rest of these conditions are represented in discrete form when they are treated implicitly (boundary perpendicular to the implicit direction) and explicitly (boundary parallel to the implicit direction). 

There are many numerical approaches one can use to approximate the solution to the initial and boundary value problem presented by a parabolic partial differential equation. However, our discussion will focus on three approaches an explicit finite difference method, an implicit finite difference method, and the so-called numerical method of lines. These approaches, as well as other numerical methods for aU types of partial differential equations, can be found in the literature [5,9,18,22,25,28-33]. 

Here, T and Ca are the temperature and concentration at any point within the particle, while Tg and Cas are the boundary values at the outer surface, respectively. As evident in Equation 2.68, the heat of reaction AH, and the transport properties D, and k, are the essential parameters. This relationship, which was originally derived by Damkohler in 1943 [9], is valid for all kinetics and applies to all particle geometries. The only implicit assumption made is that of symmetry, that is, the assumption that Tj and C s are uniform over the entire boundary surface. Using this expression, it is possible to find the maximum temperature difference between the surface and the center of particle, which occurs when the reactant is used up before it reaches the center AT x is influenced by C s in addition to AH D and... 

Fletcher (1974) introduced unequal 8x intervals Whiting and Carr (1977) applied orthogonal collocation to electrochemistry Shoup and Szabo (1982) applied Gourlay s (1970) hopscotch method to electrochemistry and Heinze et al (1984) showed how to include the boundary value c in the implicit equations of the Crank-Nicolson method, thereby removing a major problem with that method. Britz (1988) applied simple explicit... 

Note that Eq. 5.50 or 5.53 (or their box-method equivalents) are true statements - within the limitations of the g approximations used - not, as in the more traditional method, Eq. 5.47, a convenient but inaccurate fiction. The boundary value c is thereby included in the equations as an implicit quantity, solved accurately together with all the other c. This was possible because of the known g value in chronopotentiometry. 

Britz D, Heinze J, Mortensen J, Storzbach M (1988) Implicit calculation of boundary values in digital simulation, applied to several electrochemical experimental types. J Electroanal Chem 240 27. 

The same numerical methods as those used to solve the homogeneous reactor models (PFR, BR, and stirred tank reactor) as well as the heterogeneous catalytic packed bed reactor models are used for gas-Uquid reactor problems. For the solution of a countercurrent column reactor, an iterative procedure must be applied in case the initial value solvers are used (Adams-Moulton, BD, explicit, or semi-implicit Runge-Kutta). A better alternative is to solve the problem as a true boundary value problem and to take advantage of a suitable method such as orthogonal collocation. If it is impossible to obtain an analytical solution for the liquid film diffusion Equation 7.52, it can be solved numerically as a boundary value problem. This increases the numerical complexity considerably. For coupled reactions, it is known that no analytical solutions exist for Equation 7.52 and, therefore, the bulk-phase mass balances and Equation 7.52 must be solved numerically. 

With the above formulism a method is now defined for forming a finite difference set of equations for a partial differential equation of the initial value type in time and of the boundary value type in a spatial variable. The method can be applied to both linear and nonlinear partial differential equations. The result is an implicit equation which must be solved for the spatial variation of the solution... 

The only function of interest in the given context is w(Ar). The stability question is then answered if the rate, w(A), has been found to be positive or negative at any value of k or wavelength A of the perturbation. The validity of this argument is due to the linearized differential equations, for which we know their solutions can be superposed. Negative w(A) means that 0- O for t- o°. Insertion of Eqns. (11.16) and (11.17) into the transport equation and the boundary condition yields an implicit equation for w(k). If we use the following transformations to express w and tin terms of the characteristic parameters Dv and v of the system, namely... 

In the treatment of explicit and implicit difference methods, we have used Dirichlet type boundary conditions, for the sake of simplicity, which specify the values of the solution on the boundaries. A more general type of boundary condition can be defined in the form of a linear combination of the solution and its derivative. Considering in particular the left boundary, such a mixed boundary condition can be written ... 

In the discussion above we have implicitly assumed a superconducting boundary conditions such as shown in Fig. 7. These boundary conditions imply that in the absence of significant continuous phase fluctuations / (/ j = 1. Physically, it means that if the array as a whole is a superconductor, it still has two states characterized by the phase difference, A ej) = 0 or it between the left and the right boundaries even in the regime where individual phases in the middle fluctuate strongly between values 0 and it. In this regime of strong discrete... 

The functional form being used for p (1) maps the real axis to the open interval (0, 1) and large values for theta(5) are associated with p(i) values near the boundary points for a probability measure (zero and one). Implicit in this parameterization is that neither p (1) nor any points in its confidence interval can be zero or one. This allows subjectivity about how extreme the confidence bounds for p (1) need to be to conclude that there is no mixture. Since the boundary points used in //oi can never be included in the confidence interval for p (1), we construct a 95%... 

---