Discrepancy in the solution of a nonlinear dynamic system

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a nonlinear dynamical system described by a specific differential equation. Participants are exploring the application of the Energy Balance Method (EBM) to derive an approximate analytical expression for the frequency of oscillation and the excitation force. The conversation includes technical details about the Hamiltonian formulation and the implications of the results obtained.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a nonlinear dynamical system and derives a relation for frequency, suggesting a discrepancy between the expected softening nature of the system and the results indicating hardening behavior.
  • Another participant questions the formulation of the Hamiltonian, stating that what was presented cannot be a Hamiltonian and asks for clarification on the generalized momentum and the transition from equations of motion to the Hamiltonian.
  • A participant defends their approach by explaining that the Hamiltonian represents the energy balance of the system and discusses the conditions under which it equals zero, emphasizing the importance of residue in approximate solutions.
  • Further clarification is sought regarding the expression of the Hamiltonian, with a request for a link to the referenced article.
  • Another participant reiterates that the Hamiltonian is not generally equal to zero but rather constant, prompting a discussion about its definition and the relationship between the Hamiltonian and the Lagrangian.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the formulation and interpretation of the Hamiltonian, with no consensus reached on the correct approach or the implications of the derived results.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions regarding the assumptions made in the derivation of the Hamiltonian and the implications of the results, particularly concerning the nature of the system's stiffness.

dekarman
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I am solving the following nonlinear dynamical system using Energy Balance Method (EBM*). My intention is to arrive at an approximate analytical expression for the frequency of oscillation and the excitation force.

u''+u=A(1+2*u) with u(0)=u'(0)=0, where A is a constant (Physically it is like a Heaviside step loading).

I first write the Hamiltonian,

0.5*(u')^2+0.5*u^2=Au(1+2*u)

which implies the residue function R= 0.5*(u')^2+0.5*u^2-Au(1+2*u).

Then I assume the initial guess, which satisfies the initial conditions u=A*(1-cos(w*t)).

Then calculate R using the initial guess and collocate it at w*t=(pi/2) to obtain the relation between A and w.

However, the relation which I obtain is w=sqrt(1+4*A), which means that with increasing value of A, the frequency increases and hence indicates a hardening nature of the system stiffness.

However, by looking at the differential equation, this is clearly a softening system since the coefficient of u is (1-2*A).

I am not able to figure out this discrepancy.

Can somebody please point out where I am going wrong exactly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Reference of EBM, APPLICATION OF THE ENERGY BALANCE METHOD
FOR STRONGLY NONLINEAR OSCILLATORS, H. Pashaei et al., Progress In Electromagnetics Research M, Vol. 2, 47–56, 2008, which is available on internet.

Thank you very much in advance.
Manish
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't follow this at all. First, the Hamiltonian is not an equation so what you have written cannot possibly be the Hamiltonian. Second, what is your generalized momentum in this problem? And how did you go from your equations of motion to the Hamiltonian.
 
Hi,

Thanks for your reply.

The Hamitonian H which I am writing is the restatement of the energybalance of the system. Since there is no damping, the inputted energy should be equal to the sum of the potential energy and the kinetic energy at any state of oscillation of the system. Subsequently,
H=KE+PE-inputted energy=0.
(You may please refer to the article to which I have referred to)

Now, H will be equal to zero if we use an exact solution of u. For any approximate solution, H is not equal to zero and there will be a residue R. I have collocated this at pi/2 since there is balance of PE and KE at that point.

I hope I have been able to throw a bit more light on the procedure.

Also, can you please tell the expression of the Hamiltonian which you are having in your mind?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To get additional insight, consider the linear problem of spring mass system excited by a step force
u''+u=A

H function is 0.5*u'^2+0.5*u^2-Au=0, i.e. KE+PE-inputted energy=0
Take a guess of u as u=A*(1-cos(p*t)).

Substitute in H function, and collocate at any point between 0 to 2*pi, you will find that P=1.
Hence the exact solution is u=A*(1-cos(t)), which actually is the exact solution of the system.
 
dekarman said:
The Hamitonian H which I am writing is the restatement of the energybalance of the system. Since there is no damping, the inputted energy should be equal to the sum of the potential energy and the kinetic energy at any state of oscillation of the system. Subsequently,
H=KE+PE-inputted energy=0.
The Hamiltonian is not, in general, equal to 0. Its time derivative is 0, which means that the Hamiltonian is constant.

dekarman said:
(You may please refer to the article to which I have referred to)
Could you provide a link?

dekarman said:
Also, can you please tell the expression of the Hamiltonian which you are having in your mind?
The usual definition of the Hamiltonian is:

[tex]\mathcal{H} = \sum_i p_i {\dot q_i} - \mathcal{L}[/tex]

Where L is the Lagrangian and the generalized momenta are given by:

[tex]p_i = \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial {\dot q_i}}[/tex]
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
946
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K