2

I found this question on the physics side of our network and tried in vain to solve it. It's better suited here, so I'll post it.

We have a vibrating string. One side of the string is fixed, and the other side of the string vibrates by the force $F(t) = A \sin\omega t$.

Wave equation in 1D:

$u_{tt}=k^2u_{xx}$

Boundary conditions:

$u(0, t) = 0,u(l, t) = A \sin \omega t$

$u(x, 0) = u_t(x, 0) = 0$

My attempt:

The $\sin \omega t$ term was always going to worry me but I ran into problems well before that!

If we use separation of variables with Ansatz:

$$u(x,t)=X(x)T(t)$$

and separation constant $-m^2$, we obtain two ODEs:

$$\ddot{X}+m^2F=0$$ and: $$\ddot{T}+m^2k^2G=0$$

The second has the classic solution:

$$T(t)=A\cos(mkt)+B\sin(mkt)$$

Using the boundary condition: $u(x,0)=u_t(x,0)=0$: $$u(x,0)=0\implies T(0)=0$$ $$0=A\cos 0+B\sin 0\implies 0=A+0\implies A=0$$

So $T(t)=B\sin(mkt)$. And for the second one: $$u_t(x,0)=0\implies \dot{T}(0)=0$$ $$\dot{T}(0)=Bmk\cos 0=0 \implies B=0$$

Or $mk=0$. Either way this makes:

$$T(t)=0$$ A commenter mused "You need to account for resonant frequencies where nonzero solutions are possible" but I'm far from sure how to go about that.

Glitch
  • 8,331
Gert
  • 369

3 Answers3

4

We can search for a solution via the Laplace transform. The inverse laplace transform is what is going to be cumbersome, and I believe we might be able to extract a series solution of sorts from it.

We would have

$$s^2 U(x,s) - su(x,0)-u_t(x,0) = k^2 \partial_{xx}U(x,s)$$

Which leads to the Boundary Value Problem in $x$,

$$\begin{cases} k^2 U''(x,s) - s^2(x,s) = 0 \\ U(0,s)=0 \\ U(L,s)=A\displaystyle\frac{\omega}{\omega^2 + s^2} \end{cases}$$

This has the solution $$U(x,s) = A\left(\frac{\omega}{\omega^2 + s^2}\right)\text{csch}{\left(\frac{Ls}{k}\right)}\text{sinh}{\left(\frac{sx}{k}\right)}$$

and so,

$$u(x,t) = \frac{1}{2 \pi i}\int_{\gamma - i\infty}^{\gamma + i\infty}U(x,s)e^{st}\,ds$$

In order to do this, consider the integral

$$\int_{\Gamma}U(x,z)e^{zt}\,dz$$

Where $\Gamma$ is the contour taken from the vertical line $x=c$, connected to a circular contour with radius $R$ in the first quadrant going around and connecting back to $x=c$ in the fourth quadrant.

Since our integral is made up of exponentials, it's easy to bound and show that it vanishes as $R\rightarrow \infty$ (I avoided this computation, but it would be nice if someone could verify my suspicion.). Further, we have simple poles at $z = \pm i \omega$ and $z=\frac{kn\pi i}{L}$ for $n \in \mathbb{Z}$. There is no pole at $z=0$ as it is a removable singularity.

Thus,

$$u(x,t) = \text{Res}(U(x,z)e^{z t},i\omega) +\text{Res}(U(x,z)e^{z t},-i\omega) +\sum_{n\in \mathbb{Z}}\text{Res}(U(x,z)e^{z t},\frac{k n \pi i}{L}) $$

To which we have the following from the residues:

$\text{Res}(U(x,z)e^{z t},i\omega) = \frac{1}{2 \pi i}(A e^{i t \omega} \csc{\frac{L \omega}{k}}\sin{\frac{\omega x}{k}})$

$\text{Res}(U(x,z)e^{z t},-i\omega) = -\frac{1}{2 \pi i}(A e^{-i t \omega} \csc{\frac{L \omega}{k}}\sin{\frac{\omega x}{k}})$

$\sum_{n\in \mathbb{Z}}\text{Res}(U(x,z)e^{z t},\frac{k n \pi i}{L}) = \frac{AkL\omega}{i} \sum_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} \left(\frac{(-1)^n}{(kn\pi)^2-(L\omega)^2} \right)\sin{\frac{n \pi x}{L}}e^{\frac{k n t \pi i}{L}}$

So that

$u(x,t) = A\csc{\left(\frac{L\omega}{k}\right)}\sin{(t\omega)}\sin{\left(\frac{\omega x}{k}\right)} + \frac{AkL\omega}{i}\sum_{n\in \mathbb{Z}}\left(\frac{(-1)^n}{(kn\pi)^2-(L\omega)^2} \right)\sin{\left(\frac{n \pi x}{L}\right)}e^{\left(\frac{k n t \pi i}{L}\right)}$

Now, noticing the summation in the index actually simplifies..we get

$u(x,t) = A\csc{\left(\frac{L\omega}{k}\right)}\sin{(t\omega)}\sin{\left(\frac{\omega x}{k}\right)} + 2AkL\omega\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\left(\frac{(-1)^n}{(kn\pi)^2-(L\omega)^2} \right)\sin{\left(\frac{n \pi x}{L}\right)}\sin{\left(\frac{k t n \pi}{L}\right)}$

Here's a gif of the string in action for $A=L=k=\omega=1$

DaveNine
  • 2,071
  • +1 for effort. Not sure I get it all. Will have to brush up on Laplace transforms... – Gert Dec 02 '17 at 21:44
  • @Gert , I have edited my post to include a full solution via Laplace Transform. – DaveNine Dec 03 '17 at 01:37
  • 1
    @DaveNine can u verify ut(x,0)=0? – Han Sen Dec 03 '17 at 03:59
  • @HanSen you are right, I don't think that that condition is satisfied(I plotted a few solutions in Mathematica) I wonder what's missing? That condition is handled very early into the solution.. – DaveNine Dec 03 '17 at 04:21
  • @DaveNine: Thank you! – Gert Dec 03 '17 at 13:35
  • I just wanted to say, after investigating what is happening at the boundary conditions for $t=0$, It appears we have some sort of Fourier Series expansion for 0, as my solution is consistent with Mathematica's numerical solution as well, and the error is very small when dealing with a finer grid. There is some sort of Gibbs Phenomenon as $x \rightarrow 0$ when forcing $t=0$ in $u_{t}(x,0)$, which is forcing the largest error on that side. I am, hence, pretty confident that the solution I derived is the exact solution for the problem. – DaveNine Dec 03 '17 at 22:48
1

Let $u(x,t)=v(x,t)+\dfrac{A}{l}\,x\sin(\omega\,t)$. Then $v$ satisfies the inhomogeneous wave equation $$ v_{tt}=k^2\,v_{xx}+\frac{A\,\omega^2}{j}\,x\sin(\omega\,t), $$ the homogeneous boundary conditions $$ v(0,t)=v(l,t)=0 $$ and the initial conditions $$ v(x,0)=0,\quad v_t(x,0)=-\frac{A\,\omega}{l}\,x. $$ The solution of this equation can be found as a series of the form $$ \sum_{m=1}^\infty \bigl(A_m(t)\cos(m\,k\,t)+B_m(t)\sin(m\,k\,t)\bigr)\sin\Bigl(\frac{m\,\pi\,x}{l}\Bigr). $$

1

A longitudinally-vibrating string is considered. The conservation of momentum gives the wave equation $$ u_{tt} - c^2 u_{xx} = 0 $$ in the interior of the domain $x\in \left]0,L\right[$, where $c$ is the speed of sound. The string is initially at rest: $$ u(x,0) = 0 = u_t(x,0)\, , \quad x\in \left]0,L\right[ . $$ The side $x=0$ is fixed: $$ u(0,t) = 0 \, . $$ A sinusoidal force is applied on the side $x=L$: $$ u_x(L,t) = \epsilon\sin \omega t \, . $$ In the original problem, a sinusoidal displacement $u(L,t)$ is applied instead.

Anyway... Also with the initial problem where boundary conditions and initial conditions on $u_t$ are incompatible at $x=L$, separation of variables may not work if applied directly (see e.g. this post, where a similar problem --arbitrary displacement at $x=0$, zero force at $x=L$-- is tackled). One can write the solution as $u(x,t) = v(x,t) + x\epsilon\sin \omega t$ and apply separation of variables for $v$.

EditPiAf
  • 20,898
  • Why $u_x(L,t) = \sin \omega t$? Why the derivative? – Gert Dec 02 '17 at 16:36
  • Hmm... it appears to me to be a math device to get rid of the inconsistency you pointed out above. But I don't think it has a physical meaning. And my problem $u(x,0) = 0 = u_t(x,0)$ persists. – Gert Dec 02 '17 at 16:54