Numerical Methods for Time-Dependent Differential Equationsdurrand/Amath_586_Review.pdf · Finite...

Numerical Methods for Time-Dependent DifferentialEquations

Dale DurranUniversity of Washington

22 August 2013

Dale Durran (Atmospheric Sci.) Amath 586 Review University of Washington 1 / 44

Introduction

Broad Categories

ODE’s

PDE’s (emphasizing low-viscosity fluid motion)Spatially discrete

Finite differenceFinite volume

Series expansions

Orthogonal expansion functionsFinite elements

Hybrids

Spectral element and discontinuous Galerkin

Introduction

Broad Categories

ODE’sPDE’s (emphasizing low-viscosity fluid motion)

Spatially discreteFinite differenceFinite volume

Series expansionsOrthogonal expansion functionsFinite elements

Hybrids

Spectral element and discontinuous Galerkin

Introduction

Broad Categories

HybridsSpectral element and discontinuous Galerkin

Introduction

Broad Categories

HybridsSpectral element and discontinuous Galerkin

Introduction

Illustrative Equation

Transport in 2D nondivergent flow.

Advective form:∂ψ

∂t+ u

∂x+ v

∂y= 0.

Flux form, an equivalent expression obtained using continuity:

∂t+∂uψ∂x

+∂vψ∂y

Flux form facilitates the construction of schemes with local(cell-wise) and global conservation.Advective form helps preserve uniform ψ in non-trivial velocityfields

Introduction

∂t+ u

∂x+ v

∂y= 0.

∂t+∂uψ∂x

+∂vψ∂y

Introduction

∂t+ u

∂x+ v

∂y= 0.

∂t+∂uψ∂x

+∂vψ∂y

Flux form facilitates the construction of schemes with local(cell-wise) and global conservation.

Advective form helps preserve uniform ψ in non-trivial velocityfields

Introduction

∂t+ u

∂x+ v

∂y= 0.

∂t+∂uψ∂x

+∂vψ∂y

ODE’s

Basic Theory – ODE’s

Order of accuracy, consistency

Stability + Consistency→ ConvergenceFlavors of stability, A-stable, L-stable

ODE’s

Order of accuracy, consistencyStability + Consistency→ Convergence

Flavors of stability, A-stable, L-stable

ODE’s

Order of accuracy, consistencyStability + Consistency→ ConvergenceFlavors of stability, A-stable, L-stable

ODE’s

Basic Method’s – ODE’s

Single-step, single-stage (Forward, Backward Euler, Trapezoidal)

Multistage methods (Runge-Kutta)Multistep methods (Leapfrog, Adams-Bashforth, Backward)

ODE’s

Single-step, single-stage (Forward, Backward Euler, Trapezoidal)Multistage methods (Runge-Kutta)

Multistep methods (Leapfrog, Adams-Bashforth, Backward)

ODE’s

Single-step, single-stage (Forward, Backward Euler, Trapezoidal)Multistage methods (Runge-Kutta)Multistep methods (Leapfrog, Adams-Bashforth, Backward)

Finite Difference Methods

Theory

General:Order of accuracy, consistency

Stability + Consistency→ ConvergenceStability: Von Neumann, Energy method, CFL condition

Discrete dispersion relationModified equation

Theory

General:Order of accuracy, consistencyStability + Consistency→ Convergence

Stability: Von Neumann, Energy method, CFL condition

Theory

General:Order of accuracy, consistencyStability + Consistency→ ConvergenceStability: Von Neumann, Energy method, CFL condition

Theory

For wavelike flows:Discrete dispersion relation

Modified equation

Theory

For wavelike flows:Discrete dispersion relationModified equation

Finite difference notation

δnx f (x) =f (x + n∆x/2)− f (x − n∆x/2)

Example:

δx fj =fj+ 1

2− fj− 1

∆xFlux form with local conservation:

dφi,j

dt+ δx (ui,jφi,j) + δy (vi,jφi,j) = 0

δnx f (x) =f (x + n∆x/2)− f (x − n∆x/2)

n∆xExample:

δx fj =fj+ 1

2− fj− 1

Flux form with local conservation:

dφi,j

δnx f (x) =f (x + n∆x/2)− f (x − n∆x/2)

n∆xExample:

δx fj =fj+ 1

2− fj− 1

∆xFlux form with local conservation:

dφi,j

Finite-Difference Methods

Unknowns are

values at points on a grid: φnj ≈ ψ(j∆x ,n∆t)

Can approximate flux or advective formBasic methods are quite simple:(

= δ2xφj+O[(∆x)2],

(dψdx

=43δ2xφj−

13δ4xφj+O[(∆x)4]

More advanced approach: a 4th-order compact scheme (LC)

)j−1

112(11δ2xφj + δ4xφj

Unknowns are values at points on a grid: φnj ≈ ψ(j∆x ,n∆t)

= δ2xφj+O[(∆x)2],

(dψdx

=43δ2xφj−

13δ4xφj+O[(∆x)4]

)j−1

Can approximate flux or advective form

Basic methods are quite simple:(dψdx

= δ2xφj+O[(∆x)2],

(dψdx

=43δ2xφj−

13δ4xφj+O[(∆x)4]

)j−1

= δ2xφj+O[(∆x)2],

(dψdx

=43δ2xφj−

13δ4xφj+O[(∆x)4]

)j−1

= δ2xφj+O[(∆x)2],

(dψdx

=43δ2xφj−

13δ4xφj+O[(∆x)4]

)j−1

Phase Speed Error in 1D Advection

Semi-discrete approximation to∂ψ

∂t+ c

∂x= 0.

Utility of High Order

High order schemes converge more rapidly as the grid is refined whenthe solution is already almost correct.

They are essential for efficiency when really trying to converge.Convergence is never achieved in high-Reynolds-number flow.(Why not?)

Exception: all those complicated linear solutions for nontrivial basicstates!

In high-Reynolds-number flow, errors are generally dominated bythe most poorly resolved scales.High-order schemes may treat the marginally resolved scalesbetter.

They are essential for efficiency when really trying to converge.

Convergence is never achieved in high-Reynolds-number flow.(Why not?)

In high-Reynolds-number flow, errors are generally dominated bythe most poorly resolved scales.

High-order schemes may treat the marginally resolved scalesbetter.

Utility of High Order II

Is it best to approximate all terms with differences having the sameorder of accuracy?

Yes – if you are trying to achieve convergence.Not particularly if you are trying to improve the representation ofpoorly resolved scales.

Yes – if you are trying to achieve convergence.

Not particularly if you are trying to improve the representation ofpoorly resolved scales.

Yes – if you are trying to achieve convergence.Not particularly if you are trying to improve the representation ofpoorly resolved scales.

Example: Staggered Meshes

Arakawa C-grid

um+ 1 , n 2

wm,n+ 1

Pm,n bm,n

um– 1 , n 2

wm,n– 1

Example: Staggered Meshes II

Shallow-water phase speeds using staggered (S) or unstaggered (U) 2nd- or 4th-order differences

0 π/4∆ π/2∆ 3π/4∆ π/∆WAVE NUMBER

50∆ 10∆ 6∆ 4∆ 3∆ 2∆WAVELENGTH

Trouble with 2∆x-Waves

Finite-difference methods do not propagate 2∆x-waves on anunstaggered mesh. Why not?

Trouble with 2∆x-Waves

Finite-difference methods do not propagate 2∆x-waves on anunstaggered mesh. Why not?

2∆x-Waves and Negative Group Velocities

Animation of 2∆x-wide spike simulated by upstream and by explicitcentered 2nd and 4th-order finite differences.

2∆x-Waves and Negative Group Velocities

Group velocity is ∂(frequency)∂(wavenumber)

Killing Off 2∆x-Waves

2∆x waves are in serious errorVery short waves can generate aliasing error

Remove the very short waves via:A scale-selective global filter

(Nonlinear) local filters that become active only in regions withlarge-amplitude short-waves

e.g., WENO finite difference methodsMajor focus of finite-volume methods

Remove the very short waves via:A scale-selective global filter

(Nonlinear) local filters that become active only in regions withlarge-amplitude short-waves

Remove the very short waves via:A scale-selective global filter(Nonlinear) local filters that become active only in regions withlarge-amplitude short-waves

e.g., WENO finite difference methods

Major focus of finite-volume methods

Finite Volume Methods

Unknowns are cell averages:

φnj ≈

∫ xj +∆x/2

xj−∆x/2ψ(x ,n∆t) dx

Essential for the simulation of shocksWeak solutions satisfy integral form of conservation law

Approximations most naturally in flux formFluxes at cell boundaries computed from sub-cell reconstructionsLeads directly to two-level forward-in-time schemes

φnj ≈

∫ xj +∆x/2

φnj ≈

∫ xj +∆x/2

Approximations most naturally in flux form

Fluxes at cell boundaries computed from sub-cell reconstructionsLeads directly to two-level forward-in-time schemes

φnj ≈

∫ xj +∆x/2

Approximations most naturally in flux formFluxes at cell boundaries computed from sub-cell reconstructions

Leads directly to two-level forward-in-time schemes

φnj ≈

∫ xj +∆x/2

Sub-Cell Reconstructions

x0 2π

Avoiding overshoots and undershoots

When it it important?

When simulating shocks. Consistent monotonemethods in flux form converge to the entropy consistent solution.

φn+1j = H(φn

j−p, . . . , φnj+q+1),

is monotone if∂ H(φj−p, . . . , φj+q+1)

∂φi≥ 0

for each integer i in the interval [j − p, j + q+1].

Monotone schemesDo not produce spurious ripples.Are first-order accurate.

When it it important? When simulating shocks. Consistent monotonemethods in flux form converge to the entropy consistent solution.

φn+1j = H(φn

j−p, . . . , φnj+q+1),

∂φi≥ 0

φn+1j = H(φn

j−p, . . . , φnj+q+1),

∂φi≥ 0

φn+1j = H(φn

j−p, . . . , φnj+q+1),

∂φi≥ 0

Advection of a Step Function

0.5 1 0.5 1x x

(a) (b)

Left: 2nd-order centered with global 4th-derivative smoother

Right: Upstream and Lax-Friedrichs (red) monotone methods

Strategy: Scheme becomes monotone near discontinuities and ishigh-order elsewhere.

Advection of a Step Function

0.5 1 0.5 1x x

(a) (b)

Left: 2nd-order centered with global 4th-derivative smoother

Right: Upstream and Lax-Friedrichs (red) monotone methods

Strategy: Scheme becomes monotone near discontinuities and ishigh-order elsewhere.

When is it important in problems without shocks?

Chemically reactingflow

∂ψ1

∂t+ c

∂ψ1

∂x= −rψ1ψ2,

∂ψ2

∂t+ c

∂ψ2

∂x= rψ1ψ2.

When is it important in problems without shocks? Chemically reactingflow

∂ψ1

∂t+ c

∂ψ1

∂x= −rψ1ψ2,

∂ψ2

∂t+ c

∂ψ2

∂x= rψ1ψ2.

∂ψ1

∂t+ c

∂ψ1

∂x= −rψ1ψ2,

∂ψ2

∂t+ c

∂ψ2

∂x= rψ1ψ2.

∂ψ1

∂t+ c

∂ψ1

∂x= −rψ1ψ2,

∂ψ2

∂t+ c

∂ψ2

∂x= rψ1ψ2.

Minmod limiter

One local-smoothing strategy to prevent growth of ripples.

Scheme is TVD, but not monotone.

Minmod limiter

One local-smoothing strategy to prevent growth of ripples.

Scheme is TVD, but not monotone.

Limiters in Action

Minmod (long-dashed), MC (red), Superbee (short-dashed)

(a) (b)

0 30∆x

Nice job at jump, but messes up smooth extremum.

Limiters in Action

Minmod (long-dashed), MC (red), Superbee (short-dashed)

(a) (b)

0 30∆x

Nice job at jump, but messes up smooth extremum.

Order of Accuracy

Scheme Estimated Order of AccuracyUpstream 0.9

Minmod Limiter 1.6Superbee Limiter 1.6

Zalesak FCT 1.7MC Limiter 1.9

Lax–Wendroff 2.0

Table: Empirically determined order of accuracy for constant-wind-speedadvection of a sine wave

Avoid limiting smooth extrema!

Order of Accuracy

Scheme Estimated Order of AccuracyUpstream 0.9

Minmod Limiter 1.6Superbee Limiter 1.6

Zalesak FCT 1.7MC Limiter 1.9

Lax–Wendroff 2.0

Table: Empirically determined order of accuracy for constant-wind-speedadvection of a sine wave

Avoid limiting smooth extrema!

Spectral Methods

Orthogonal Expansion Functions

Unknowns are coefficients of expansion functions ak (t)

φ(x , t) =N∑

ak (t)ϕk (x)

Evolution equations for ak obtained viaGalerkin requirement that residual be orthogonal to all ϕk (x)

“Spectral"Global conservation of φ and φ2

Collocation requirement that sets the residual to zero at a set ofgrid points

“Pseudo-spectral"50% faster than spectralLose conservation

Spectral Methods

φ(x , t) =N∑

ak (t)ϕk (x)

Spectral Methods

φ(x , t) =N∑

ak (t)ϕk (x)

Spectral Methods

Orthogonal Expansion Functions – II

Using orthogonal expansion functionsDecouples the evolution equations for the ak (good for explicit timedifferencing).

Computation of the forcing for all N of the ak involves O(N2)operations (Fourier methods can be O(N log N)).

Jan 2010: ECMWF refines to T1279

“Spectral accuracy" when approximating smooth functions — errorgoes to zero faster than any finite power of the effective gridspacing.Not conducive to preserving positivity or treating steep gradients

Spectral Methods

Using orthogonal expansion functionsDecouples the evolution equations for the ak (good for explicit timedifferencing).Computation of the forcing for all N of the ak involves O(N2)operations (Fourier methods can be O(N log N)).

Spectral Methods

“Spectral accuracy" when approximating smooth functions — errorgoes to zero faster than any finite power of the effective gridspacing.

Not conducive to preserving positivity or treating steep gradients

Spectral Methods

Global Overshoots and Undershoots with PoorResolution

(b)(a)

Spectral Methods

Finite Element Methods

Piecewise linear elements (chapeau functions)

x0 2π

Spectral Methods

The Galerkin Requirement

General PDE∂ψ

∂t+ F (ψ) = 0

The residual isR(φ) =

∂t+ F (φ)

If the residual is orthogonal to every expansion function ϕk (x),

N∑n=1

Mn,kdan

dt= −

[F( N∑

]dx for all k = 1, . . . ,N

The mass matrix isMn,k =

∫Sϕnϕk dx

Spectral Methods

General PDE∂ψ

∂t+ F (ψ) = 0

∂t+ F (φ)

N∑n=1

Mn,kdan

dt= −

[F( N∑

]dx for all k = 1, . . . ,N

∫Sϕnϕk dx

Spectral Methods

General PDE∂ψ

∂t+ F (ψ) = 0

∂t+ F (φ)

N∑n=1

Mn,kdan

dt= −

[F( N∑

]dx for all k = 1, . . . ,N

∫Sϕnϕk dx

Spectral Methods

General PDE∂ψ

∂t+ F (ψ) = 0

∂t+ F (φ)

N∑n=1

Mn,kdan

dt= −

[F( N∑

]dx for all k = 1, . . . ,N

∫Sϕnϕk dx

Expansion functions have compact support

N∑n=1

Mn,kdan

dt= −

[F( N∑

Evaluation of the RHS for all N of the ak involves only O(N)operations.The evolution equations for the ak are coupled

Implicit solve every time stepVery inefficient for wave-propagation problems

Implicit coupling in quadratic or cubic finite element methodsmakes them completely impractical for the simulation of waves.Higher-order finite element methods are the nevertheless thestandard approach for solving may elliptic problems.

N∑n=1

Mn,kdan

dt= −

[F( N∑

N∑n=1

Mn,kdan

dt= −

[F( N∑

Evaluation of the RHS for all N of the ak involves only O(N)operations.

The evolution equations for the ak are coupledImplicit solve every time stepVery inefficient for wave-propagation problems

N∑n=1

Mn,kdan

dt= −

[F( N∑

N∑n=1

Mn,kdan

dt= −

[F( N∑

Implicit coupling in quadratic or cubic finite element methodsmakes them completely impractical for the simulation of waves.

Higher-order finite element methods are the nevertheless thestandard approach for solving may elliptic problems.

N∑n=1

Mn,kdan

dt= −

[F( N∑

Finite Element versus Compact Differencing in 1D

1D advection equation∂ψ

∂t+ c

∂x= 0

Piecewise linear finite-elements:

(aj+1 + 4aj + aj−1

(aj+1 − aj−1

4th-order compact scheme:

(dψdx

[(dψdx

(dψdx

)j−1

]=φj+1 − φj−1

∂t+ c

∂x= 0

(aj+1 + 4aj + aj−1

(aj+1 − aj−1

(dψdx

[(dψdx

(dψdx

)j−1

]=φj+1 − φj−1

∂t+ c

∂x= 0

(aj+1 + 4aj + aj−1

(aj+1 − aj−1

(dψdx

[(dψdx

(dψdx

)j−1

]=φj+1 − φj−1

Schemes are identical!

dφi,j

(dψdx

[(dψdx

)i+1,j

(dψdx

)i−1,j

]=φi+1,j − φi−1,j

[(dψdy

)i,j+1

(dψdy

)i,j−1

]=φi,j+1 − φi,j−1

Finite-elements: huge implicit mess (element couples with itself and 8neighbors).

dφi,j

(dψdx

[(dψdx

)i+1,j

(dψdx

)i−1,j

]=φi+1,j − φi−1,j

[(dψdy

)i,j+1

(dψdy

)i,j−1

]=φi,j+1 − φi,j−1

Finite-elements: huge implicit mess (element couples with itself and 8neighbors).

Hybrid Methods

The Challenge

How do weExtend finite-volume methods to high order (beyond piecewiseparabolic or cubic)?

Extend finite-element methods to high order while avoiding implicitcoupling (and other bad behaviors)?Avoid the global coupling and O(N2) operation counts to update aset of expansion coefficients in spectral or pseudo-spectralmethods?

Hybrid Methods

The Challenge

How do weExtend finite-volume methods to high order (beyond piecewiseparabolic or cubic)?Extend finite-element methods to high order while avoiding implicitcoupling (and other bad behaviors)?

Avoid the global coupling and O(N2) operation counts to update aset of expansion coefficients in spectral or pseudo-spectralmethods?

Hybrid Methods

The Challenge

How do weExtend finite-volume methods to high order (beyond piecewiseparabolic or cubic)?Extend finite-element methods to high order while avoiding implicitcoupling (and other bad behaviors)?Avoid the global coupling and O(N2) operation counts to update aset of expansion coefficients in spectral or pseudo-spectralmethods?

Hybrid Methods

One Solution

Use h-p methods – break domain into h elements and represent thesolution within each element by orthogonal polynomials of maximumorder p.

Spectral element methods – solution is continuous at cellboundaries (good for approximating 2nd-order derivatives).Discontinuous Galerkin methods – solution is discontinuousacross cell boundaries (localizes communication between cells).

Hybrid Methods

One Solution

Spectral element methods – solution is continuous at cellboundaries (good for approximating 2nd-order derivatives).

Discontinuous Galerkin methods – solution is discontinuousacross cell boundaries (localizes communication between cells).

Hybrid Methods

One Solution

Spectral element methods – solution is continuous at cellboundaries (good for approximating 2nd-order derivatives).Discontinuous Galerkin methods – solution is discontinuousacross cell boundaries (localizes communication between cells).

Hybrid Methods

Discontinuous Galerkin Method

Enforce Galerkin criterion locally, within each element.

Two flavors of DG. Polynomial structure within each element is eitherModal: Legendre polynomials

Nodal: Lagrange polynomials interpolating theGauss-Legendre-Lobatto (GLL) points

Hybrid Methods

Two flavors of DG. Polynomial structure within each element is eitherModal: Legendre polynomials

Nodal: Lagrange polynomials interpolating theGauss-Legendre-Lobatto (GLL) points

Hybrid Methods

Two flavors of DG. Polynomial structure within each element is eitherModal: Legendre polynomialsNodal: Lagrange polynomials interpolating theGauss-Legendre-Lobatto (GLL) points

Hybrid Methods

Modal DG

First 5 Legendre Polynomials

(a)-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1

Truly orthogonal

Hybrid Methods

Nodal DG

Lagrange Polynomials Interpolating 5 GLL Nodes

(b)-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1

Discrete orthogonality using quadrature at the nodes

Hybrid Methods

DG Considerations

Advantages:Suitable for massively parallel computing

Communicates via fluxes with nearest neighbors onlyFor high order-polynomials, solution relatively insensitive to fluxformulationLots of work to do within each element

Rapid convergence for smooth solutions

Hybrid Methods

DG Considerations

Communicates via fluxes with nearest neighbors only

For high order-polynomials, solution relatively insensitive to fluxformulationLots of work to do within each element

Hybrid Methods

DG Considerations

Communicates via fluxes with nearest neighbors onlyFor high order-polynomials, solution relatively insensitive to fluxformulation

Lots of work to do within each element

Hybrid Methods

DG Considerations

Hybrid Methods

DG Considerations

Hybrid Methods

DG Considerations II

Disadvantages:Requires very short time step

Grid spacing reduced toward element boundaries

DiscontinuitiesCan be accommodated across element boundaries by limiting thefluxes

Cannot naturally be accommodated within each element

Hybrid Methods

Grid spacing reduced toward element boundariesDiscontinuities

Can be accommodated across element boundaries by limiting thefluxes

Cannot naturally be accommodated within each element

Hybrid Methods

Grid spacing reduced toward element boundariesDiscontinuities

Can be accommodated across element boundaries by limiting thefluxesCannot naturally be accommodated within each element

Closing Opinions

The practical distinction between finite-difference andfinite-volume methods is most consequential in (particularly whensplitting along each spatial dimension)

In the simulation of shocks!In the time differencing.

“Spectral convergence" is hard to beat if the solution is smooth.When simulating low-viscosity flow, finite elements are tooinefficient except for irregular geometriesh-p methods hold great promise, but rely on massively parallelcomputers to be competitive.

Closing Opinions

“Spectral convergence" is hard to beat if the solution is smooth.

When simulating low-viscosity flow, finite elements are tooinefficient except for irregular geometriesh-p methods hold great promise, but rely on massively parallelcomputers to be competitive.

Closing Opinions

“Spectral convergence" is hard to beat if the solution is smooth.When simulating low-viscosity flow, finite elements are tooinefficient except for irregular geometries

h-p methods hold great promise, but rely on massively parallelcomputers to be competitive.

Closing Opinions

“Spectral convergence" is hard to beat if the solution is smooth.When simulating low-viscosity flow, finite elements are tooinefficient except for irregular geometriesh-p methods hold great promise, but rely on massively parallelcomputers to be competitive.

Reference

Durran, D.R., 2010: Numerical Methods for Fluid Dynamics: WithApplications to Geophysics. 2nd Ed. Springer.

Numerical Methods for Time-Dependent Differential Equationsdurrand/Amath_586_Review.pdf · Finite...

Documents

NETWORK EXPANSIONS

A Method for the Approximation of Functions Defined by ... · PDF fileA Method for the Approximation of Functions Defined by Formal Series Expansions in Orthogonal Polynomials* By

Agm expansions

ORTHOGONAL POLYNOMIAL EXPANSIONS FOR - College of

Sub- Nyquist Sampling Continuous to Finite Module Orthogonal Matching Pursuit Block

Technical Expansions

Regional Ocean Modeling System Free surface, hydrostatic ocean model Finite-difference 3D Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations Horizontal orthogonal

Binomial Expansions

FINITE REFLECTION GROUPS · 1959] FINITE REFLECTION GROUPS 497 Proof. By 3.1, S leaves each point of £(2) fixed and maps each point orthogonal to £(2) on its antipode. Hence if

Finite pseudo orbit expansions for spectral quantities of ... · Finite pseudo orbit expansions for spectral quantities of quantum graphs R Band1, J M Harrison2 and C H Joyner1 1

Ogcdp expansions

Finite Element Modeling of Orthogonal Machining of Brittle

Uncertainty propagation using polynomial chaos expansions · 3 Polynomial chaos basis Orthogonal polynomials Multivariate basis 4 Computing the coeﬃcients and post-processing 5

Sets with many pairs of orthogonal vectors over finite fieldsomran.ahmadi/... · 2014-07-07 · Sets with many pairs of orthogonal vectors over finite fields Omran Ahmadi Ali Mohammadian

Chebyshev Expansions

Series Expansions for Finite-State Markov Chains

Analytic Theory of Finite Asymptotic Expansions in the ... · asymptotic expansions which after dividing by the last meaningful term on the right, , coincide (apart from the signs

Finite Element Simulation of Orthogonal Metal Cutting

FINITE ELEMENTSIMULATION IN ORTHOGONAL MACHINING OF ... · FINITE ELEMENTSIMULATION IN ORTHOGONAL MACHINING OF INCONEL 718 ... the finite element code to study the behavior of Inconel

Puiseux expansions