Can the Non-Homogenous Heat Equation be Solved Using Eigenfunctions?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter JoernE
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Heat Heat equation
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the solution of a non-homogenous heat equation defined on the interval \(0 \leq x \leq \pi\). Participants explore various methods for finding a solution, including the use of eigenfunctions and Fourier series, while addressing boundary and initial conditions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests a solution of the form \(u(x,t) = \sum_1^{\infty} b_n(t) \sin \frac{n \pi x}{L}\) and questions the correctness of the eigenfunction \(\phi_n(x) = \sin \frac{n \pi x}{L}\).
  • Another participant proposes a different method by decomposing the solution into \(u = w(x,t) + v(x)\) and derives a new equation for \(w\) based on the original PDE.
  • There is a suggestion to expand the constant term \(-1\) in a Fourier sine series to address the non-homogeneity.
  • Participants discuss the boundary conditions and initial conditions for both \(w\) and \(v\), with some expressing uncertainty about the implications of these conditions on the solution.
  • One participant points out a potential typo regarding the dependence of \(X\) and \(T\) on their respective variables, and emphasizes the need to find constants \(A\), \(B\), and \(\lambda\).
  • Another participant calculates eigenvalues and eigenfunctions, proposing \(\phi_n(x) = \sin \left(\frac{n \pi x}{2}\right)\) and discusses the implications for the solution \(u(x,t)\).
  • There is a contention regarding the validity of setting \(V(x) = 0\) and the approach to solving non-homogeneous equations, with some participants advocating for a different method involving functions of both \(x\) and \(t\).

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the methods for solving the non-homogenous heat equation, with no consensus reached on the best approach. Some agree on the validity of the first method proposed, while others challenge the correctness of the second method and the assumptions made regarding \(V(x)\).

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the need for careful consideration of boundary and initial conditions, as well as the implications of the non-homogeneous term in the equation. There are unresolved questions regarding the correctness of certain assumptions and the handling of constants in the proposed solutions.

JoernE
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Consider the following non-homogenous heat equation on [itex]0 \leq x \leq \pi[/itex]

[itex]u_t = k u_{xx} - 1[/itex] with [itex]u(x,0) = 0, u(0,t) = 0, u(\pi, t) = 0[/itex]

Find a solution of the form

[itex]\displaystyle \sum_1^{\infty} b_n(t) \phi_n (x)[/itex]

where [itex]\phi_n(x)[/itex] are the eigenfunctions of an appropriate homogenous problem, and find explicit expressions for [itex]b_n(t)[/itex]

So I think

[itex]\phi_n(x) = \sin \frac{n \pi x}{L}[/itex]

so I find solutions in the form

[itex]\displaystyle u(x,t) = \sum_1^{\infty} b_n (t) \ \sin \frac{n \pi x}{L}[/itex]

Am I on the right track? Is the eigenfunction correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org


I have a different method...

Let [tex]u = w(x,t) + v(x)[/tex]

Then

[tex]\frac{\partial u}{\partial t} = \frac{\partial w}{\partial t}[/tex] and [tex]\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x^2} = \frac{\partial^2 w}{\partial x^2} + \frac{\partial^2 v}{\partial x^2}[/tex]

Sub these back into the PDE to obtain

[tex]\frac{\partial w}{\partial t} = k \frac{\partial^2 w}{\partial x^2} + k \frac{\partial^2 v}{\partial x^2} - 1[/tex]

Choose [tex]k \frac{\partial^2 v}{\partial x^2} - 1 = 0[/tex]

So

[tex]V'' = \frac{1}{k}, \ V(0) = V(\pi) = 0[/tex]

[tex]V' = \frac{1}{k} + A[/tex]

[tex]V = \frac{1}{k} + Ax + B[/tex]


[tex]V(0) = \frac{1}{k} + B = 0 \ \Rightarrow \ B = - \frac{1}{k}[/tex]

[tex]V(\pi) = \frac{1}{k} + A \pi + B \ \Rightarrow \ A = -\frac{1}{k \pi} - \frac{B}{\pi}[/tex]

[tex]V(x) = 0[/tex]??

Also since [tex]k \frac{\partial^2 v}{\partial x^2} - 1 = 0[/tex] we have

[tex]\frac{\partial w}{\partial t} = k \frac{\partial^2 w}{\partial x^2}[/tex] which is homogeneous.

[tex]u(0, t) = v(0) + w(0, t) = 0[/tex]

[tex]\Rightarrow \ w(0,t) = 0[/tex]

[tex]u(x, 0) = v(x) + w(x,0) = 0[/tex]

[tex]\Rightarrow \ w(x,0) = 0[/tex]

[tex]u(\pi, t) = v(\pi) + w(\pi, t) = 0[/tex]
[tex]\Rightarrow \ w(\pi, t) = 0[/tex]

Then we have

[tex]w_t = k w_{xx}[/tex] with [tex]w(x,o) = 0, w(0,t) = 0, w(\pi, t) = 0[/tex].

Since this is homogenous, we can solve by letting

[tex]w = XT[/tex]

[tex]\frac{T'}{kT} = \frac{X''}{X} = - \lambda[/tex]

[tex]X = A \cos(\sqrt{\lambda}t) + B \sin(\sqrt{\lambda}t)[/tex]

[tex]X(0) = A = 0[/tex]

but now I get a little lost...I think I know where to go, just not exactly how to get there. Already have calculated that [tex]v(x) = 0[/tex], which will lead to what I need to prove (I think).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joerne, on this board use "[tex]", not "[tex]" to show LaTex. I have editted your post to correct that.<br /> <br /> Your first method is perfectly correct. You will, of course, have to expand the constant, -1, in a Fourier sine series.[/tex][/tex]
 
HallsofIvy said:
Joerne, on this board use "[tex]", not "[tex]" to show LaTex. I have editted your post to correct that.[/tex][/tex]
[tex][tex] <br /> Thanks.<br /> <br /> <blockquote data-attributes="" data-quote="HallsofIvy" data-source="post: 2951688" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-title"> HallsofIvy said: </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> Your first method is perfectly correct. You will, of course, have to expand the constant, -1, in a Fourier sine series. </div> </div> </blockquote><br /> Are you referring to my first post here?<br /> <br /> Are you saying that what I wrote in the second post (under "I have a different method") is not correct?[/tex][/tex]
 


JoernE said:
[tex]w = XT[/tex]

[tex]\frac{T'}{kT} = \frac{X''}{X} = - \lambda[/tex]

[tex]X = A \cos(\sqrt{\lambda}t) + B \sin(\sqrt{\lambda}t)[/tex]

[tex]X(0) = A = 0[/tex]

but now I get a little lost...I think I know where to go, just not exactly how to get there. Already have calculated that [tex]v(x) = 0[/tex], which will lead to what I need to prove (I think).

You have a typo, X is a function of x, and T is a function of t.

You need to find the value of A,B, and lamda.
The first b.c. gave that A=0. The second b.c. gives X(Pi)=B Sin(sqrt(lamda)*Pi), which is equal to 0. Unless, sqrt(lamda)=n/2 where n is an integer number . n=1,2,3,4,5,6...

Now that you know what lamda is equal to , solve for T, but do not apply the initial condition,yet!

Once you have the expressions for X and T, take their product (which is u), and apply the initial condition.
 
Thanks MasterX!


This should be [tex]\displaystyle X = A \cos(\sqrt{\lambda}x) + B \sin(\sqrt{\lambda}x)[/tex]

so

[tex]\displaystyle X(\pi) = B \sin (\sqrt{\lambda} \pi) = 0[/tex]

[tex]\displaystyle \ \sqrt{\lambda} \pi = \frac{n \pi }{2}[/tex]

[tex]\displaystyle \ \sqrt{\lambda} = \frac{n}{2}[/tex]

[tex]\displaystyle \ \lambda_n = \big( \frac{n}{2} \big)^2[/tex] for [tex]n = 1,2,...[/tex]

So

[tex]\displaystyle \phi_n(x) = \sin \big(\frac{n \pi x}{2} \big)[/tex]

and so

[tex]\displaystyle u(x,t) = v(x) + \sum_1^{\infty} b_n \sin \big(\frac{n \pi}{2} \big)[/tex]

[tex]\displaystyle \ = \displaystyle \sum_1^{\infty} b_n(t) \phi_n (x)[/tex]

and I think

[tex]\displaystyle \ b_n = \frac{1}{\pi} \int_0^{\pi} \sin(\sqrt{\lambda} x) dx[/tex]
 
Do not forget that u=X*T and T' = -lamda * k*T => T=C*Exp(-k *lamda*t)

Therefore b_n=D*Exp(-k*lamda*t), where D=C*B, but this is not important.

Substitute this equation into u, and apply the initial condition to get D.

EDIT:
Since V(x)=0, the above analysis will give you that D=0, which is wrong! Also, V(x) can not be zero.

I do not think this is the way to solve non homogeneous equations. I remember first solving the homogeneous equation (exactly as you did for w), then I assumed that A,B, C are function of x,t and I solved the non-homogeneous. In the end, I used the b.c and i.c. to compute the value of the constants.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K