Performance comparison of numerical inversion methods for Laplace and Hankel integral transforms in engineering problems

M. Raoofian Naeeni, R. Campagna, M. Eskandari-Ghadi and Alireza A. Ardalan

Applied Mathematics and Computation, 2015, vol. 250, issue C, 759-775

Abstract: Different methods for the numerical evaluations of the inverse Laplace and inverse of joint Laplace–Hankel integral transforms are applied to solve a wide range of initial-boundary value problems often arising in engineering and applied mathematics. The aim of the paper is to present a performance comparison among different numerical methods when they are applied to transformed functions related to actual engineering problems found in the literature. Most of our selected test functions have been found in the solution of boundary value problems of applied mechanics such as those related to transient responses of isotropic and transversely isotropic half-space to concentrated impulse or those related to viscoelastic wave motion in layered media. These classes of test functions are frequently encountered in similar problems such as those in boundary element or boundary integral equations, theoretical seismology, soil–structure-interaction in time domain and so on. Therefore, their behavior with different numerical inversion algorithms could make a useful guide to a precise choice of more suitable inversion method to be used in similar problems. Some different methods are also investigated in detail and compared for the inversion of the joint Hankel–Laplace transforms, where more sophisticated integrand functions are encountered. It is shown that Durbin, Crump, D’Amore, Fixed-Talbot, Gaver–Whyn–Rho (GWR), and Direct Integration methods have excellent performance and produce good results when applied to the same problems. On the contrary, Gaver–Stehfest and Piessens methods furnish results not very reliable for almost all classes of transformed functions and they seem good only for “simple” transformed functions. Particularly the performance of GWR algorithm is very good even for transformed functions with infinite number of singularities, where the other methods fail. In addition, in case of double integral transforms, only the Fixed-Talbot, Durbin and Weeks methods are recommended.

Keywords: Laplace transform; Hankel transform; Numerical inversion; Joint transform inversion; Acceleration methods (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2015
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0096300314014775
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:apmaco:v:250:y:2015:i:c:p:759-775

DOI: 10.1016/j.amc.2014.10.102

Access Statistics for this article

Applied Mathematics and Computation is currently edited by Theodore Simos

More articles in Applied Mathematics and Computation from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().