2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.amc.2010.10.050
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A novel numerical scheme for solving Burgers’ equation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
28
1

Year Published

2012
2012
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 45 publications
(32 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
0
28
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Error analysis comparison of results at t = 0.1 for  = 1, Δt = 0.00001, h = 0.0125 is shown in Table 2. A comparison of present method is shown in Table 3, with previous ones reported by [14,15]. In Figure 3, the error analysis comparison of results at t = 0.1 for  = 1, Δt = 0.00001, h = 0.0125 has presented.…”
Section: Discretization Using Approximating Functionmentioning
confidence: 94%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Error analysis comparison of results at t = 0.1 for  = 1, Δt = 0.00001, h = 0.0125 is shown in Table 2. A comparison of present method is shown in Table 3, with previous ones reported by [14,15]. In Figure 3, the error analysis comparison of results at t = 0.1 for  = 1, Δt = 0.00001, h = 0.0125 has presented.…”
Section: Discretization Using Approximating Functionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…In particular, for The theoretical solution of this problem was expressed as an infinite series by Cole [5]. For different viscosity parameters, a comparison of results for present work with the previous work [12,13,14,15] at t = 0.1 for ν = 1, Δt = 0.00001, h = 0.0125, are presented in Table 1. Error analysis comparison of results at t = 0.1 for  = 1, Δt = 0.00001, h = 0.0125 is shown in Table 2.…”
Section: Discretization Using Approximating Functionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These aims will be done by comparing ECEM to other numerical approaches based on the finite difference method [16,23], finite element method [28], cubic spline and sinc-function methods [31,32], and the fourth-order Runge-Kutta method [21] (RK4) and the BDF-type Chebyshev approximation based fourth-order implicit Runge-Kutta method [29] (CCM). The numerical errors are measured by the following maximum and l 2 norms…”
Section: Numerical Experimentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Table 8 explains both advantage and disadvantage about ECEM with the modified B-spline approximation and the pseudo-spectral approximation for the spatial discretization. For the B-spline approximation (BS), the required cpu time to get the similar maximum error for three time discretizations, Euler method ( [32]), RK4 and ECEM are measured at different times. Even if ECEM and RK4 are fourth order convergence in time, ECEM allows much larger time step τ = 0.04 than τ = 0.005 while RK4+BS spends less cpu time than ECEM+BS does for the same accuracy under ϵ = 0.001 and M = 79.…”
Section: Numerical Experimentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation