Discrepancy in the solution of a nonlinear dynamic system

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around solving a nonlinear dynamical system using the Energy Balance Method (EBM) to derive an analytical expression for oscillation frequency and excitation force. The user encounters a discrepancy where their derived frequency relation, w=sqrt(1+4*A), suggests a hardening stiffness, while the differential equation indicates a softening system due to the coefficient of u being (1-2*A). Clarifications are sought regarding the formulation of the Hamiltonian and the assumptions made in the energy balance approach. Participants emphasize the importance of correctly defining the Hamiltonian and its relation to energy conservation in the system. The conversation highlights the need for precise mathematical definitions and methods in analyzing nonlinear dynamics.
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:

\mathcal{H} = \sum_i p_i {\dot q_i} - \mathcal{L}

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

p_i = \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial {\dot q_i}}
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top