Instability explicit numerical solution

Within esqjlicit schemes the computational effort to obtain the solution at the new time step is very small the main effort lies in a multiplication of the old solution vector with the coeflicient matrix. In contrast, implicit schemes require the solution of an algebraic system of equations to obtain the new solution vector. However, the major disadvantage of explicit schemes is their instability [84]. The term stability is defined via the behavior of the numerical solution for t —> . A numerical method is regarded as stable if the approximate solution remains bounded for t —> oo, given that the exact solution is also bounded. Explicit time-step schemes tend to become unstable when the time step size exceeds a certain value (an example of a stability limit for PDE solvers is the von-Neumann criterion [85]). In contrast, implicit methods are usually stable. 

The numerous complexities of the physical domain represented by all of the components and associated detailed aspects of a system that affect the stability of the system must be (1) realistically included into the mathematical models, (2) accurately resolved by the numerical solution methods, and (3) shown to not have introduced artifacts into the calculations. The numerically enhanced mathematical stability of implicit methods, the potential numerical instability of explicit methods, and the dissipative and dispersive characteristics of implicit and explicit methods require careful investigations. Jensen (1992) has given examples of some of these effects. 

All the methods presented so far, e.g. the Euler and the Runge-Kutta methods, are examples of explicit methods, as the numerical solution aty +i has an explicit formula. Explicit methods, however, have problems with stability, and there are certain stability constraints that prevent the explicit methods from taking very large time steps. Stability analysis can be used to show that the explicit Euler method is conditionally stable, i.e. the step size has to be chosen sufficiently small to ensure stability. This conditional stability, i.e. the existence of a critical step size beyond which numerical instabilities manifest, is typical for all explicit methods. In contrast, the implicit methods have much better stability properties. Let us introduce the implicit backward Euler method. 

Especially for the electrons, the fluid model has the advantage of a lower computational effort than the PIC/MC method. Their low mass (high values of the transport coefficients) and consequent high velocities give rise to small time steps in the numerical simulation (uAf < Aa) if a so-called explicit method is used. This restriction is easily eliminated within the fluid model by use of an implicit method. Also, the electron density is strongly coupled with the electric field, which results in numerical Instabilities. This requires a simultaneous implicit solution of the Poisson equation for the electric field and the transport equation for the electron density. This solution can be deployed within the fluid model and gives a considerable reduction of computational effort as compared to a nonsi-multaneous solution procedure [179]. Within the PIC method, only fully explicit methods can be applied. 

---