- Research
- Open Access
A fast implicit difference scheme for a new class of time distributed-order and space fractional diffusion equations with variable coefficients
- Huan-Yan Jian^{1}Email author,
- Ting-Zhu Huang^{1},
- Xi-Le Zhao^{1} and
- Yong-Liang Zhao^{1}
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13662-018-1655-2
© The Author(s) 2018
- Received: 31 January 2018
- Accepted: 19 May 2018
- Published: 13 June 2018
Abstract
Recently, several problems in mathematics, physics, and engineering have been modeled via distributed-order fractional diffusion equations. In this paper, a new class of time distributed-order and space fractional diffusion equations with variable coefficients on bounded domains and Dirichlet boundary conditions is considered. By performing numerical integration we transform the time distributed-order fractional diffusion equations into multiterm time-space fractional diffusion equations. An implicit difference scheme for the multiterm time-space fractional diffusion equations is proposed along with a discussion about the unconditional stability and convergence. Then, the fast Krylov subspace methods with suitable circulant preconditioners are developed to solve the resultant linear system in light of their Toeplitz-like structures. The aforementioned methods are proved to acquire the capability to reduce the memory storage of the proposed implicit difference scheme from \(\mathcal{O}(M^{2})\) to \(\mathcal {O}(M)\) and the computational cost from \(\mathcal{O}(M^{3})\) to \(\mathcal{O}(M\log M)\) during iteration procedures, where M is the number of grid nodes. Finally, numerical experiments are employed to support the theoretical findings and show the efficiency of the proposed methods.
Keywords
- Multi-term time-space fractional diffusion
- Distributed-order fractional derivative
- Shifted Grünwald discretization
- Toeplitz matrix
- Circulant preconditioner
- Krylov subspace method
MSC
- 26A33
- 65F08
- 65M06
1 Introduction
In the past few decades, the fractional calculus has attracted considerable attention and interest due to its extensive applications in modeling practical scientific problems, such as heat-transfer engineering [1], anomalous relaxation models [2], solid mechanics [3], viscoelastic materials [4], continuum and statistical mechanics [5], mathematical physics [6], control system [7], chaos [8, 9], finance [10], electromagnetics [11, 12], and image processing [13]. Based on different problems, a variety of fractional diffusion equations (FDEs) need to be solved, in which the time-fractional anomalous FDE is always an important concern of many mathematicians; refer, e.g., to [14–16] and references therein.
However, some complex physical processes [17, 18] that lack temporal scaling over the whole time domain cannot be described by the time-fractional anomalous FDEs with a constant-order temporal derivative. Such processes can be modeled via the time distributed-order FDEs. The idea of distributed-order FDE was first proposed by Caputo (see [19] and references therein). Chechkin et al. [20] presented diffusion-like equations with time and space fractional derivatives of distributed order for the kinetic description of anomalous diffusion and relaxation phenomena, and showed that the time distributed-order FDE can describe the accelerating superdiffusion and retarding subdiffusion. Boundary value problems for the generalized time-FDE of distributed order over an open bounded domain were considered by Luchko [21]. Furthermore, Meerschaert et al. [22] gave explicit strong solutions and stochastic analogues to time distributed-order FDE on bounded domains, with Dirichlet boundary conditions. By employing the techniques of the Fourier and Laplace transforms, a fundamental solution to the Cauchy problem for the distributed-order time-fractional diffusion-wave equation in the transform domain was obtained by Gorenflo et al. [23]. Jiang et al. [24] derived the analytical solutions of multiterm time-space Caputo–Riesz fractional advection diffusion equations with Dirichlet nonhomogeneous boundary conditions. For more general distributed-order FDEs, the analytical solutions are not easily acquired. Therefore, numerical methods are worth considering to solve the distributed-order FDEs.
In a more general sense, the first step is to approximate the distributed integral with a finite sum based on a simple quadrature rule when solving distributed-order FDEs via numerical methods. Thus the distributed-order FDE is converted into a multiterm FDE [25], and we have to efficiently solve the approximated multiterm FDE. To our knowledge, only a few articles have considered such problem. Liu et al. [26] discussed some computationally effective numerical methods for simulating the multiterm time-fractional wave-diffusion equations and extended such numerical techniques to other kinds of multiterm fractional time-space models with fractional Laplacian operator. Morgado et al. [27] studied a numerical approximation for the time distributed-order FDE concerning the stability and convergence; they [28] also presented an implicit difference scheme for numerical approximation of the distributed-order time fractional reaction–diffusion equation with nonlinear source term. An implicit difference scheme for the time distributed-order and Riesz space FDE on bounded domains with Dirichlet boundary conditions was constructed by Ye et al. [29]. Mashayekhi et al. [30] introduced a new numerical method for solving the distributed-order FDEs, which is based upon hybrid functions approximation. Hu et al. [31] provided an implicit numerical method of a new time distributed-order and two-sided space fractional advection–dispersion equation and proved the uniqueness, stability, and convergence of the method. A numerical method of distributed-order FDEs of a general form was investigated by Katsikadelis [25], where the trapezoidal rule was employed to approximate the distributed integral, and the analog equation method was applied to solve the resultant multiterm FDE. However, the stability and convergence were only shown in the experimental examples, and there was no rigorous theoretical proof.
Since the fractional differential operator is nonlocal [38, 39], a naive discretization of the FDE leads to traditional approaches [40] of solving FDEs, which tend to generate dense systems, whose solution with Gaussian elimination costs \(\mathcal{O}(M^{3})\) arithmetic operations and requires a storage of order \(\mathcal{O}(M^{2})\). Wang and Wang [41] found that the coefficient matrix had a Toeplitz structure in the linear system, which was generated by the discretization introduced in [42]. More precisely, this coefficient matrix can be expressed as a sum of diagonal-multiply-Toeplitz matrices. This implied that the storage requirement was \(\mathcal{O}(M)\) instead of \(\mathcal{O}(M^{2})\), and the complexity of the matrix–vector multiplication by the fast Fourier transform (FFT) [43] required only \(\mathcal{O}(M\log M)\) operations. With this advantage, Wang and Wang [44] employed the conjugate gradient normal residual (CGNR) method to solve the discretized linear systems in \(\mathcal{O}(M \log^{2} M)\) arithmetic operations. The convergence of the CGNR method can be fast when the diffusion coefficients are very small, that is, discretized systems are well-conditioned [44]. Nevertheless, if the diffusion coefficient functions are not small, the resultant systems become ill-conditioned, and hence the CGNR method converges very slowly.
To overtake this shortcoming and get a faster convergence, some Krylov subspace methods with circulant preconditioners have been studied and extended. Lei and Sun [45] developed the preconditioned CGNR (PCGNR) method with a circulant preconditioner, an extension of the Strang circulant preconditioner [46], to solve the discretized Toeplitz-like linear systems of the FDE. Pan et al. [47] introduced approximate inverse preconditioners for such systems and proved that the spectra of the preconditioned matrices are clustered around one. Thus Krylov subspace methods with the proposed preconditioner converge very fast. Donatelli et al. [48] proposed two tridiagonal structure-reserving preconditioners with CGNR and generalized minimal residual (GMRES) methods for solving the resultant Toeplitz-like linear systems. Using the short-memory principle [49] to generate a sequence of approximations for the inverse of the discretization matrix with a low computational effort, Bertaccini et al. [50] solved the mixed classical and fractional partial differential equations effectively by preconditioned Krylov iterative methods. Our recent work [51] showed that the preconditioned conjugate gradient squared (PCGS) method with suitable circulant preconditioners can efficiently solve the resultant Toeplitz-like linear systems.
In this paper, we focus on deriving a fast implicit difference scheme for solving the new problem (1.1)–(1.3). We first transform TDFDEs into multiterm time-space FDEs by applying numerical integration. Then we present an implicit difference scheme with unconditional stability and convergence that is first-order accurate in space and \((1+\frac{\sigma}{2})\)-order accurate in time. We prove these properties of the proposed scheme both theoretically and numerically. On the other hand, we show that the discretizations of TDFDEs lead to a nonsymmetric Toeplitz-like system of linear equations. The linear system can be solved efficiently by using Krylov subspace methods with suitable circulant preconditioners [52–54]. It can greatly reduce the memory and computational costs; the memory requirement and computational complexity are only \(\mathcal{O}(M)\) and \(\mathcal{O}(M\log M)\) in each iteration step, respectively. Meanwhile, it is meaningful to investigate the performance of some other preconditioned Krylov subspace solvers, such as the preconditioned biconjugate gradient stabilized (PBiCGSTAB) method [55], the preconditioned biconjugate residual stabilized (PBiCRSTAB) method [56], and the preconditioned GPBiCOR\((m, \ell)\) (PGPBiCOR\((m, \ell)\)) method [57].
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2, we present an implicit difference scheme for the TDFDEs. The uniqueness, unconditional stability, and convergence of the implicit difference scheme are analyzed in Sect. 3. In Sect. 4, we show that the resultant linear system has nonsymmetric Toeplitz matrices and design fast solution techniques based on preconditioned Krylov subspace methods to solve problem (1.1)–(1.3). In Sect. 5, we present numerical experiments to show the effectiveness of the numerical method. Concluding remarks are given in Sect. 6.
2 An implicit difference scheme for TDFDEs
In this section, we present an implicit difference method for discretizing the TDFDEs defined by (1.1)–(1.3). The distributed integral term of TDFDEs is discretized by using numerical integration, and we show that the discretizations lead to multiterm time-space FDEs. Then we propose an implicit difference scheme with the shifted Grünwald–Letnikov formulae approximation to solve the mutiterm time-space FDEs.
For simplicity, but without loss of the generality, we first divide the integral interval \([0,1]\) into q-subintervals with \(0=\xi_{0}<\xi_{1}<\xi _{2}<\cdots<\xi_{q}=1\) and take \(\Delta\xi_{s}=\xi_{s}-\xi_{s-1}=\frac {1}{q}=\sigma\) (\(q\in N\)), \(\alpha_{s}=\frac{\xi_{s-1}+\xi_{s}}{2}=\frac {2s-1}{2q}\) (\(s=1,2,\ldots,q\)). The following lemma gives a complete description of the discretization in the integral term.
Lemma 2.1
(The compound midpoint quadrature rule [29])
Next, we solve the multiterm time-space FDEs. We discretize the domain \([0, L]\times[0,T]\) with \(x_{i}=ih\), \(i=0,1,2,\ldots,M\), and \(t_{k}=k\tau\), \(k=0,1,2,\ldots,N\), where \(h=\frac{L}{M}\) and \(\tau=\frac{T}{N}\) are the sizes of spatial grid and time step, respectively.
The following two lemmas will be further useful in the discretizations of the multiterm time-space FDEs.
Lemma 2.2
([58])
Lemma 2.3
([59])
3 Solvability, stability, and convergence results
In this section, we analyze the unique solvability, unconditional stability, and convergence of the implicit difference scheme (2.14)–(2.16). Meanwhile, the difference scheme is proved to converge with the first-order in space and the \((1+\frac{\sigma }{2})\)-order in time.
Before proving the most important result of this section on the solvability, stability, and convergence properties, we first need to recall the following useful proposition.
Proposition 3.1
([60])
The starting point of our analysis is the following theoretical result.
Proof
This implies that the coefficient matrix \(M^{k+1}\) is a strictly diagonally dominant M-matrix (see [41]), and therefore it is nonsingular, so the difference scheme (2.14)–(2.16) is uniquely solvable. □
The unique solvability of the implicit difference scheme (2.14)–(2.16) has been established, and now we further show its stability.
Theorem 3.3
The difference scheme (2.14)–(2.16) for the TDFDEs is unconditionally stable, where \(1<\beta<2\).
Proof
To this end, we will use the mathematical induction.
The next step is to analyze the convergence of the implicit method given in (2.14)–(2.16). To this end, suppose that the continuous problem (1.1)–(1.3) has a smooth solution \(u(x,t)\in C_{x,t}^{\beta+1,2}([0,L]\times [0,T])\). Recall that U denotes the exact solution of system (1.1)–(1.3); u represents the numerical solution of the implicit difference approximation (2.14)–(2.16) for \(1<\beta<2\). Let us assume that the error \(e=U-u\) at mesh points \((x_{i},t_{k})\) is defined by \(e_{i}^{k}=U_{i}^{k}-u_{i}^{k}\) (\(i=1,2,\ldots ,M-1;k=0,1,2,\ldots,N\)). Let \(R^{k}=[e_{1}^{k},e_{2}^{k},\ldots,e_{M-1}^{k}]^{T}\) and \(R^{0}=[e_{1}^{0},e_{2}^{0},\ldots,e_{M-1}^{0}]^{T}=0\).
The bound (3.2) is an essential ingredient for the convergence analysis of this section. The following theorem shows that our implicit difference scheme is convergent with first-order accuracy in space and \((1+\frac{\sigma}{2})\)-order in time (i.e., \(\mathcal{O}(h+\tau ^{1+\sigma/2})\)).
Theorem 3.4
Proof
4 Fast solution techniques based on preconditioned Krylov subspace solvers
In this section, we analyze both the implementation and the computational complexity of the implicit difference scheme (2.14)–(2.16) and propose an efficient implementation based on Krylov subspace solvers with suitable circulant preconditioners.
According to (2.17) and (2.18), there is a sequence of nonsymmetric Toeplitz linear system to be solved at each time level k. If a direct method is employed to solve the linear system (2.18), the LU decomposition can be reused in each time level k. This approach, however, needs the memory requirement of \(\mathcal{O}(M^{2})\) and the complexity of \(\mathcal{O}(M^{3})\) per iteration step, which is prohibitively expensive if M is large. Fortunately, since \(G_{\beta}\) is a Toeplitz matrix, it can be stored with only M entries [41]. The Krylov subspace methods with circulant preconditioners [45, 61] can be used to solve Toeplitz-like linear systems with a fast convergence rate. In this case, we also remark that the computational complexity of preconditioned Krylov subspace methods is only in \(\mathcal{O}(M\log M)\) at each iteration step for implementing the implicit difference scheme. In this study, we employ four preconditioned Krylov subspace methods, the PBiCGSTAB method, the PBiCRSTAB method, the PGPBiCOR\((m, \ell)\) method, and the PCGNR method. The numerical results show the performance of three proposed preconditioned Krylov subspace solvers over the LU decomposition and the PCGNR method, while solving (2.18), and reveal that the results of the PGPBiCOR\((m, \ell)\) method are better than others when \(m=2\), \(\ell=1\).
Lemma 4.2
Proof
Remark 4.3
It is worth mentioning that the real parts of all eigenvalues of \(s(G_{\beta})\) and \(s(G_{\beta}^{T})\) are strictly negative for all M.
Then it follows that \(s(G_{\beta})=F^{*}\Lambda_{\beta}F\) and \(s(G_{\beta}^{T})=F^{*}\bar{\Lambda}_{\beta}F\), where \(\bar{\Lambda}_{\beta}\) is the complex conjugate of \(\Lambda_{\beta}\). Decompose the circulant matrix \(S^{k+1}=F^{*}\Lambda_{s} F\) with the diagonal matrix \(\Lambda_{s}=I-v[\bar {d}_{+}^{k+1}\Lambda_{\beta}+\bar{d}_{-}^{k+1}\bar{\Lambda}_{\beta}]\). Then \(S^{k+1}\) is invertible if all diagonal entries of \(\Lambda_{s}\) are nonzero. Moreover, we can obtain the following conclusion about the invertibility of \(S^{k+1}\) in (4.1).
Theorem 4.4
Proof
Unfortunately, when the diffusion coefficients \(d_{\pm}(x,t)\) are nonconstant functions, the preconditioned sequence \((S^{k+1})^{-1} M^{k+1}\) cannot be clustered at 1; we refer to [48] for details of the theoretical analysis. For clarity, we still give some figures to illustrate the clustering eigenvalue distributions of several specified preconditioned matrices in the next section.
5 Numerical examples
In all tables, the symbols “PCGNR(S)”, “PBiCRSTAB(S)”, “PBiCGSTAB(S)”, and “PGPBiCOR(S)” correspond to the PCGNR, PBiCRSTAB, PBiCGSTAB, and PGPBiCOR methods with the circulant preconditioner \(S^{k+1}\), respectively. Similarly, the symbols “PCGNR(C)”, “PBiCRSTAB(C)”, “PBiCGSTAB(C)”, and “PGPBiCOR(C)” denote Chan’s circulant preconditioner \(c(M^{k+1})\) for the PCGNR, PBiCRSTAB, PBiCGSTAB, and PGPBiCOR(2,1) methods, respectively. All numerical experiments are implemented in MATLAB (R2013a) on a desktop PC with 4 GB RAM, Inter (R) Core (TM) i3-2130 CPU, @3.40 GHz.
Example 5.1
The exact solution of this problem is \(u(x,t)=x^{2}(1-x)^{2}(1-t^{2})\).
M | β = 1.3 | β = 1.5 | β = 1.8 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
e(h,τ,σ) | \(\mathit{rate}_{h}\) | e(h,τ,σ) | \(\mathit{rate}_{h}\) | e(h,τ,σ) | \(\mathit{rate}_{h}\) | |
20 | 3.978980e−03 | – | 1.594856e−03 | – | 9.815094e−04 | – |
40 | 2.181749e−03 | 0.8669 | 8.201275e−04 | 0.9595 | 3.974269e−04 | 1.3043 |
80 | 1.144519e−03 | 0.9307 | 4.133978e−04 | 0.9883 | 1.779229e−04 | 1.1594 |
160 | 5.855271e−04 | 0.9669 | 2.080332e−04 | 0.9907 | 8.429100e−05 | 1.0778 |
320 | 2.950680e−04 | 0.9887 | 1.046050e−04 | 0.9919 | 4.121610e−05 | 1.0322 |
N | β = 1.3 | β = 1.5 | β = 1.8 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
e(h,τ,σ) | \(\mathit{rate}_{\tau}\) | e(h,τ,σ) | \(\mathit{rate}_{\tau}\) | e(h,τ,σ) | \(\mathit{rate}_{\tau}\) | |
5 | 6.897311e−04 | – | 4.256675e−04 | – | 2.559967e−04 | – |
10 | 2.640520e−04 | 1.3852 | 1.711099e−04 | 1.3148 | 1.099115e−04 | 1.2198 |
20 | 8.702462e−05 | 1.6013 | 6.546150e−05 | 1.3862 | 4.935518e−05 | 1.1551 |
40 | 4.570569e−05 | 0.9290 | 3.003826e−05 | 1.1238 | 2.399388e−05 | 1.0405 |
Comparisons for solving Example 5.1 by the LU method and the PCGNR/PBiCRSTAB method with two circulant preconditioners, where \(\beta = 1.3, 1.5, 1.8\), \(\alpha = 0.5\), \(q = 10\), and \(T =0.75\)
β | M | N | LU | \(\mathrm{PCGNR(S)}\) | \(\mathrm{PCGNR(C)}\) | \(\mathrm{PBiCRSTAB(S)}\) | \(\mathrm{PBiCRSTAB(C)}\) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
\(\mathrm{CPU(s)}\) | \(\mathrm{CPU(s)}\) | Iter | \(\mathrm{CPU(s)}\) | Iter | \(\mathrm{CPU(s)}\) | Iter | \(\mathrm{CPU(s)}\) | Iter | |||
1.3 | 2^{6} | 2^{2} | 0.01 | 0.02 | 18.0 | 0.01 | 16.8 | 0.02 | 14.0 | 0.02 | 14.0 |
2^{7} | 2^{3} | 0.01 | 0.04 | 20.0 | 0.04 | 20.4 | 0.04 | 18.6 | 0.04 | 18.9 | |
2^{8} | 2^{4} | 0.13 | 0.09 | 22.9 | 0.09 | 24.8 | 0.11 | 22.3 | 0.10 | 21.7 | |
2^{9} | 2^{5} | 1.36 | 0.38 | 25.4 | 0.44 | 30.2 | 0.45 | 26.3 | 0.42 | 25.3 | |
2^{10} | 2^{6} | 16.72 | 1.20 | 27.5 | 1.72 | 40.9 | 1.47 | 30.5 | 1.39 | 29.0 | |
2^{11} | 2^{7} | 213.81 | 7.99 | 28.8 | 16.74 | 63.1 | 9.60 | 33.5 | 16.23 | 58.7 | |
1.5 | 2^{6} | 2^{2} | 0.01 | 0.03 | 18.0 | 0.03 | 14.0 | 0.01 | 12.0 | 0.01 | 11.8 |
2^{7} | 2^{3} | 0.01 | 0.03 | 19.3 | 0.03 | 17.0 | 0.03 | 14.0 | 0.03 | 14.0 | |
2^{8} | 2^{4} | 0.14 | 0.08 | 21.8 | 0.08 | 19.2 | 0.08 | 16.4 | 0.08 | 16.0 | |
2^{9} | 2^{5} | 1.40 | 0.34 | 23.3 | 0.32 | 21.6 | 0.32 | 18.4 | 0.32 | 18.7 | |
2^{10} | 2^{6} | 16.86 | 1.05 | 24.1 | 1.06 | 24.2 | 1.01 | 20.6 | 1.00 | 20.3 | |
2^{11} | 2^{7} | 217.19 | 6.69 | 24.2 | 7.20 | 25.9 | 6.16 | 21.3 | 6.34 | 22.0 | |
1.8 | 2^{6} | 2^{2} | 0.01 | 0.04 | 18.5 | 0.03 | 16.0 | 0.01 | 8.0 | 0.01 | 9.0 |
2^{7} | 2^{3} | 0.01 | 0.04 | 22.0 | 0.03 | 18.8 | 0.02 | 9.0 | 0.03 | 10.6 | |
2^{8} | 2^{4} | 0.14 | 0.09 | 24.0 | 0.09 | 22.9 | 0.06 | 10.0 | 0.07 | 12.8 | |
2^{9} | 2^{5} | 1.43 | 0.36 | 26.1 | 0.41 | 27.8 | 0.21 | 11.0 | 0.26 | 14.9 | |
2^{10} | 2^{6} | 17.16 | 1.21 | 27.3 | 1.47 | 34.4 | 0.61 | 11.0 | 0.86 | 17.0 | |
2^{11} | 2^{7} | 221.05 | 8.22 | 29.7 | 12.02 | 44.7 | 3.66 | 11.6 | 5.86 | 20.0 |
Comparisons for solving Example 5.1 by the PBiCGSTAB/PGPBiCOR(2, 1) method with two circulant preconditioners, where \(\beta = 1.3, 1.5, 1.8\), \(\alpha = 0.5\), \(q = 10\), and \(T = 0.75\)
β | M | N | \(\mathrm{PBiCGSTAB(S)}\) | \(\mathrm{PBiCGSTAB(C)}\) | \(\mathrm{PGPBiCOR(S)}\) | \(\mathrm{PGPBiCOR(C)}\) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
\(\mathrm{CPU(s)}\) | Iter | \(\mathrm{CPU(s)}\) | Iter | \(\mathrm{CPU(s)}\) | Iter | \(\mathrm{CPU(s)}\) | Iter | |||
1.3 | 2^{6} | 2^{2} | 0.02 | 14.0 | 0.02 | 14.0 | 0.02 | 13.0 | 0.02 | 12.3 |
2^{7} | 2^{3} | 0.04 | 17.6 | 0.04 | 17.4 | 0.04 | 15.0 | 0.04 | 15.0 | |
2^{8} | 2^{4} | 0.09 | 21.1 | 0.09 | 20.8 | 0.09 | 17.3 | 0.09 | 17.0 | |
2^{9} | 2^{5} | 0.39 | 24.8 | 0.38 | 24.1 | 0.36 | 19.3 | 0.36 | 19.9 | |
2^{10} | 2^{6} | 1.27 | 28.0 | 1.25 | 27.7 | 1.07 | 21.0 | 1.18 | 23.3 | |
2^{11} | 2^{7} | 8.48 | 31.0 | 15.92 | 60.5 | 6.64 | 22.6 | 11.73 | 41.1 | |
1.5 | 2^{6} | 2^{2} | 0.01 | 12.0 | 0.01 | 11.8 | 0.01 | 11.0 | 0.02 | 10.0 |
2^{7} | 2^{3} | 0.03 | 14.0 | 0.03 | 14.0 | 0.03 | 12.0 | 0.03 | 12.0 | |
2^{8} | 2^{4} | 0.07 | 15.6 | 0.07 | 15.9 | 0.07 | 13.0 | 0.08 | 14.3 | |
2^{9} | 2^{5} | 0.28 | 17.4 | 0.29 | 18.2 | 0.26 | 14.0 | 0.29 | 16.0 | |
2^{10} | 2^{6} | 0.88 | 19.1 | 0.90 | 19.7 | 0.80 | 15.0 | 0.89 | 17.3 | |
2^{11} | 2^{7} | 5.59 | 20.2 | 5.75 | 21.1 | 4.75 | 15.8 | 5.37 | 18.0 | |
1.8 | 2^{6} | 2^{2} | 0.01 | 10.0 | 0.01 | 10.0 | 0.01 | 8.0 | 0.01 | 9.0 |
2^{7} | 2^{3} | 0.02 | 9.8 | 0.02 | 11.0 | 0.02 | 8.0 | 0.03 | 11.0 | |
2^{8} | 2^{4} | 0.05 | 10.2 | 0.07 | 13.9 | 0.05 | 9.0 | 0.07 | 12.8 | |
2^{9} | 2^{5} | 0.19 | 11.0 | 0.26 | 15.6 | 0.18 | 9.0 | 0.28 | 15.0 | |
2^{10} | 2^{6} | 0.56 | 11.0 | 0.85 | 17.8 | 0.55 | 9.3 | 0.94 | 17.9 | |
2^{11} | 2^{7} | 3.28 | 11.0 | 5.93 | 21.5 | 3.24 | 10.0 | 6.19 | 20.8 |
Example 5.2
Gorenflo et al. [23] considered the special case \(\omega(\alpha) = \delta(\alpha-\eta)\), \(0< \eta<1\), and showed that the fundamental solution of the time distributed-order fractional diffusion equation can be viewed as a probability density function in space x, evolving in time t. Hu et al. [31] also considered the solutions of the time distributed-order and two-sided space-fractional advection-dispersion equation in the special cases of the derivative weight function \(\omega(\alpha) = \delta(\alpha-0.5)\) and \(\omega(\alpha) = \tau^{\alpha}\), where τ is a positive constant.
6 Conclusion
In this paper, an implicit difference scheme approximating the TDFDEs on bounded domains has been described. The implicit difference scheme is unconditionally stable and convergent based on mathematical induction. Meanwhile, the new difference scheme converges with the first-order in space and the \((1+\frac{\sigma}{2})\)-order in time for the TDFDEs. Numerical experiments confirming the obtained theoretical results are carried out. More significantly, it has also been shown that an efficient implementation of the PGPBiCOR(2,1) method with Strang’s circulant preconditioner for solving the discretized Toeplitz-like linear system requires only \(\mathcal{O}(M \log M)\) computational complexity and \(\mathcal{O}(M)\) storage cost. Extensive numerical results fully support the theoretical findings and prove the efficiency of the proposed preconditioned Krylov subspace methods.
In future work, we will focus on handling two- or more dimensional TDFDEs with fast solution techniques. Meanwhile, we will also focus on the development of other efficient preconditioners for accelerating the convergence of Krylov subspace solvers for discretized Toeplitz systems.
Declarations
Acknowledgements
The authors are greatly grateful to Dr. Xiu-Ling Hu and Dr. Xian-Ming Gu for their constructive discussions and insightful comments. The authors are also grateful to the anonymous referees for their useful suggestions and comments that improved the presentation of this paper.
Availability of data and materials
Not applicable.
Funding
This work is supported by NSFC (61702083, 11501085).
Authors’ contributions
All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Authors’ Affiliations
References
- Gao, F.: General fractional calculus in nonsingular power-law kernel applied to model anomalous diffusion phenomena in heat-transfer problems. Therm. Sci. 21, 11–18 (2017) View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Yang, X.: General fractional calculus operators containing the generalized Mittag–Leffler functions applied to anomalous relaxation. Therm. Sci. 21, 317–326 (2017) View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Rossikhin, Y.A., Shitikova, M.V.: Applications of fractional calculus to dynamic problems of linear and nonlinear hereditary mechanics of solids. Appl. Mech. Rev. 50(1), 15–67 (1997) View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bagley, R.L., Torvik, P.J.: Fractional calculus in the transient analysis of viscoelastically damped structures. AIAA J. 23(6), 918–925 (1985) View ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Mainardi, F.: Fractional Calculus: Some Basic Problems in Continuum and Statistical Mechanics. Springer, New York (2012) Google Scholar
- Baleanu, D., Jajarmi, A., Asad, J.H., Blaszczyk, T.: The motion of a bead sliding on a wire in fractional sense. Acta Phys. Pol. A 131(6), 1561–1564 (2017) View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Baleanu, D., Jajarmi, A., Hajipour, M.: A new formulation of the fractional optimal control problems involving Mittag–Leffler nonsingular kernel. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 175(3), 718–737 (2017) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Hajipour, M., Jajarmi, A., Baleanu, D.: An efficient non-standard finite difference scheme for a class of fractional chaotic systems. J. Comput. Nonlinear Dyn. 13, 021013 (2018) View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hajipour, A., Hajipour, M., Baleanu, D.: On the adaptive sliding mode controller for a hyperchaotic fractional-order financial system. Physica A 497, 139–153 (2018) MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Jajarmi, A., Hajipour, M., Baleanu, D.: New aspects of the adaptive synchronization and hyperchaos suppression of a financial model. Chaos Solitons Fractals 99, 285–296 (2017) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Baleanu, D., Inc, M., Yusuf, A., Aliyu, A.I.: Time fractional third-order evolution equation: symmetry analysis, explicit solutions and conservation laws. J. Comput. Nonlinear Dyn. 13, 021011 (2018) View ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Inc, M., Yusuf, A., Aliyu, A.I., Baleanu, D.: Lie symmetry analysis and explicit solutions for the time fractional generalized Burgers–Huxley equation. Opt. Quantum Electron. 50(2), 94 (2018) View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bai, J., Feng, X.: Fractional-order anisotropic diffusion for image denoising. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 16(10), 2492–2502 (2007) MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Zhuang, P., Liu, F., Anh, V., Turner, I.: New solution and analytical techniques of the implicit numerical method for the anomalous subdiffusion equation. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 46(2), 1079–1095 (2008) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Baleanu, D., Inc, M., Yusuf, A., Aliyu, A.I.: Lie symmetry analysis, exact solutions and conservation laws for the time fractional Caudrey–Dodd–Gibbon–Sawada–Kotera equation. Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul. 59, 222–234 (2018) MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Inc, M., Yusuf, A., Aliyu, A.I., Baleanu, D.: Time-fractional Cahn–Allen and time-fractional Klein–Gordon equations: Lie symmetry analysis, explicit solutions and convergence analysis. Physica A 493, 94–106 (2018) MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bagley, R.L., Torvik, P.J.: On the existence of the order domain and the solution of distributed order equations, Part I. Int. J. Appl. Math. 2(7), 865–882 (2000) MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
- Caputo, M.: Distributed order differential equations modelling dielectric induction and diffusion. Fract. Calc. Appl. Anal. 4(4), 421–442 (2001) MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
- Sokolov, I.M., Chechkin, A.V., Klafter, J.: Distributed order fractional kinetics. Acta Phys. Pol. B 35, 1323–1341 (2004) Google Scholar
- Chechkin, A.V., Gorenflo, R., Sokolov, I.M.: Retarding subdiffusion and accelerating superdiffusion governed by distributed-order fractional diffusion equations. Phys. Rev. E 66(4), 046129 (2002) View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Luchko, Y.: Boundary value problems for the generalized time-fractional diffusion equation of distributed order. Fract. Calc. Appl. Anal. 12(4), 409–422 (2009) MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
- Meerschaert, M.M., Nane, E., Vellaisamy, P.: Distributed-order fractional diffusions on bounded domains. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 379(1), 216–228 (2011) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Gorenflo, R., Luchko, Y., Stojanović, M.: Fundamental solution of a distributed order time-fractional diffusion-wave equation as probability density. Fract. Calc. Appl. Anal. 16(2), 297–316 (2013) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Jiang, H., Liu, F., Turner, I., Burrage, K.: Analytical solutions for the multi-term time-space Caputo–Riesz fractional advection–diffusion equations on a finite domain. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 389(2), 1117–1127 (2012) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Katsikadelis, J.T.: Numerical solution of distributed order fractional differential equations. J. Comput. Phys. 259, 11–22 (2014) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Liu, F., Meerschaert, M.M., McGough, R.J., Zhuang, P., Liu, Q.: Numerical methods for solving the multi-term time-fractional wave-diffusion equation. Fract. Calc. Appl. Anal. 16(1), 9–25 (2013) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Ford, N.J., Morgado, M.L., Rebelo, M.: A numerical method for the distributed order time-fractional diffusion equation. In: International Conference on Fractional Differentiation and Its Applications, pp. 1–6 (2014) Google Scholar
- Morgado, M.L., Rebelo, M.: Numerical approximation of distributed order reaction–diffusion equations. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 275, 216–227 (2015) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Ye, H., Liu, F., Anh, V., Turner, I.: Numerical analysis for the time distributed-order and Riesz space fractional diffusions on bounded domains. IMA J. Appl. Math. 80(3), 825–838 (2015) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Mashayekhi, S., Razzaghi, M.: Numerical solution of distributed order fractional differential equations by hybrid functions. J. Comput. Phys. 315, 169–181 (2016) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Hu, X., Liu, F., Turner, I., Anh, V.: An implicit numerical method of a new time distributed-order and two-sided space-fractional advection–dispersion equation. Numer. Algorithms 72(2), 393–407 (2016) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Diethelm, K., Ford, N.J.: Numerical analysis for distributed-order differential equations. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 225(1), 96–104 (2009) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Katsikadelis, J.T.: The fractional distributed order oscillator. A numerical solution. J. Serb. Soc. Comput. Mech. 6(1), 148–159 (2012) Google Scholar
- Luo, W.H., Huang, T.Z., Wu, G.C., Gu, X.M.: Quadratic spline collocation method for the time fractional subdiffusion equation. Appl. Math. Comput. 276, 252–265 (2016) MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- Kumar, D., Singh, J., Baleanu, D.: A new numerical algorithm for fractional Fitzhugh–Nagumo equation arising in transmission of nerve impulses. Nonlinear Dyn. 91, 307–317 (2018) MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Baleanu, D., Inc, M., Yusuf, A., Aliyu, A.I.: Space-time fractional Rosenou–Haynam equation: Lie symmetry analysis, explicit solutions and conservation laws. Adv. Differ. Equ. 2018(1), 46 (2018) MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Inc, M., Yusuf, A., Aliyu, A.I., Baleanu, D.: Lie symmetry analysis, explicit solutions and conservation laws for the space-time fractional nonlinear evolution equations. Phys. A 496, 371–383 (2018) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Kumar, D., Singh, J., Baleanu, D.: A new analysis of the Fornberg–Whitham equation pertaining to a fractional derivative with Mittag–Leffler-type kernel. Eur. Phys. J. Plus 133(2), 70 (2018) View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kumar, D., Singh, J., Baleanu, D., Sushila: Analysis of regularized long-wave equation associated with a new fractional operator with Mittag–Leffler type kernel. Phys. A 492, 155–167 (2018) MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Ng, M.K.: Circulant and skew-circulant splitting methods for Toeplitz systems. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 159(1), 101–108 (2003) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Wang, H., Wang, K., Sircar, T.: A direct \(\mathcal{O}(N \log^{2}N)\) finite difference method for fractional diffusion equations. J. Comput. Phys. 229(21), 8095–8104 (2010) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Meerschaert, M.M., Tadjeran, C.: Finite difference approximations for fractional advection-dispersion flow equations. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 172(1), 65–77 (2004) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Ng, M.: Iterative Methods for Toeplitz Systems. Oxford University Press, USA (2004) MATHGoogle Scholar
- Wang, K., Wang, H.: A fast characteristic finite difference method for fractional advection–diffusion equations. Adv. Water Resour. 34(7), 810–816 (2011) View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lei, S.L., Sun, H.W.: A circulant preconditioner for fractional diffusion equations. J. Comput. Phys. 242, 715–725 (2013) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Chan, R., Strang, G.: Toeplitz equations by conjugate gradients with circulant preconditioner. SIAM J. Sci. Stat. Comput. 10(1), 104–119 (1989) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Pan, J., Ke, R., Ng, M., Sun, H.W.: Preconditioning techniques for diagonal-times-Toeplitz matrices in fractional diffusion equations. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 36(6), 2698–2719 (2014) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Donatelli, M., Mazza, M., Serra-Capizzano, S.: Spectral analysis and structure preserving preconditioners for fractional diffusion equations. J. Comput. Phys. 307, 262–279 (2016) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Popolizio, M.: A matrix approach for partial differential equations with Riesz space fractional derivatives. Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 222(8), 1975–1985 (2013) View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bertaccini, D., Durastante, F.: Solving mixed classical and fractional partial differential equations using short-memory principle and approximate inverses. Numer. Algorithms 74(4), 1061–1082 (2017) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Gu, X.M., Huang, T.Z., Ji, C.C., Carpentieri, B., Alikhanov, A.A.: Fast iterative method with a second order implicit difference scheme for time-space fractional convection–diffusion equations. J. Sci. Comput. 72(3), 957–985 (2017) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Gu, X.M., Huang, T.Z., Zhao, X.L., Li, H.B., Li, L.: Strang-type preconditioners for solving fractional diffusion equations by boundary value methods. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 277, 73–86 (2015) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Gu, X.M., Huang, T.Z., Li, H.B., Li, L., Luo, W.H.: On k-step CSCS-based polynomial preconditioners for Toeplitz linear systems with application to fractional diffusion equations. Appl. Math. Lett. 42, 53–58 (2015) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Zhao, X.L., Huang, T.Z., Wu, S.L., Jing, Y.F.: DCT- and DST-based splitting methods for Toeplitz systems. Int. J. Comput. Math. 89(5), 691–700 (2012) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Van der Vorst, H.A.: Bi-CGSTAB: a fast and smoothly converging variant of Bi-CG for the solution of nonsymmetric linear systems. SIAM J. Sci. Stat. Comput. 13(2), 631–644 (1992) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Abe, K., Sleijpen, G.L.G.: BiCR variants of the hybrid BiCG methods for solving linear systems with nonsymmetric matrices. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 234(4), 985–994 (2010) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Gu, X.M., Huang, T.Z., Carpentieri, B., Li, L., Wen, C.: A hybridized iterative algorithm of the BiCORSTAB and GPBiCOR methods for solving non-Hermitian linear systems. Comput. Math. Appl. 70(12), 3019–3031 (2015) MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Gao, G.H., Sun, Z.Z.: A compact finite difference scheme for the fractional sub-diffusion equations. J. Comput. Phys. 230(3), 586–595 (2011) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Miller, K.S., Ross, B.: An Introduction to the Fractional Calculus and Fractional Differential Equations. Wiley, New York (1993) MATHGoogle Scholar
- Hao, Z.P., Sun, Z.Z., Cao, W.R.: A fourth-order approximation of fractional derivatives with its applications. J. Comput. Phys. 281, 787–805 (2015) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Wang, S.F., Huang, T.Z., Gu, X.M., Luo, W.H.: Fast permutation preconditioning for fractional diffusion equations. SpringerPlus 5(1), 1109 (2016) View ArticleGoogle Scholar