PDE : Can not solve Helmholtz equation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around solving the Helmholtz equation in the context of an anti-plane elasticity problem defined on a rectangular domain. Participants explore the analytical solution to compare with numerical results from a boundary integral method. The conversation includes mathematical derivations, boundary conditions, and challenges faced in finding the solution.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • The original poster describes the problem setup, including boundary conditions and the formulation of the Helmholtz equation.
  • Some participants suggest that the separation of variables was correctly applied but recommend a different approach to express the equations.
  • One participant notes that the equation (7) equates a constant P to a Fourier cosine series and identifies the lowest order term, c_0, as 2P, proposing a method to derive the coefficients.
  • Another participant reiterates the previous point about the Fourier series and provides a derived solution, emphasizing the independence of the solution from x due to the nature of the boundary conditions.
  • Concerns are raised about ensuring the derived solution satisfies all boundary conditions, including the behavior at the top boundary.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

There is no consensus on the final solution, as participants provide differing approaches and interpretations of the boundary conditions and the implications for the solution. Some participants agree on certain mathematical steps, while others suggest alternative methods or express uncertainty about the implications of the derived results.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight potential issues with the assumptions made in the derivation and the dependence on the definitions of the coefficients. The discussion remains open regarding the correct interpretation of the boundary conditions and the resulting solution.

sompongt
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
PDE : Can not solve Helmholtz equation

(This is not a homework. I doing my research on numerical boundary integral. I need the analytical solution to compare the results with my computer program. I try to solve this equation, but it not success. I need urgent help.)

I working on anti-plane elasticity problem. The physical problem is described on a rectangular domain,
0 \leq x \leq a and 0 \leq y \leq b.

Let u_z = u(x,y;t) is the displacement function in z direction.

u_z = u(x,y;t) is the displacement function in z direction.
The boundary condition are specified by:

(1) u = 0 on the lower edge (y=0)

(2) \text{Traction} = 0 on the left edge (x=0)
(3) \text{Traction} = 0 on the right edge (x=a)
(4) \text{Traction} = P e^{i \omega t} on the top edge (y=b) in the z direction

This problem can be formulate in the frequency domain to obtain the Helmholtz equation, as below.

The problem seem not difficult. But I can not solve it. Could anybody help me?
Any suggestion are welcome.

Mathematical derivation start here. The problem statement describe as,

\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x^2} + \frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x^2} + k^2 u = 0,
0 \leq x \leq a, 0 \leq y \leq b \text{...(1)}
\end{equation}

where
\begin{equation}
k^2 = \frac{\omega^2}{c^2}
\end{equation}

\omega = angular frequency of the excited force
c = speed of wave = function of material properties

subjected by the following boundary conditions,

\begin{align}
\frac{\partial u}{\partial x}(x=0, y) &= 0 \text{...(2)}\label{bc1}\\
\frac{\partial u}{\partial x}(x=a, y) &= 0 \text{...(3)}\label{bc2} \\
u(x, y = 0) &= 0 \text{...(4)}\label{bc3}\\
\frac{\partial u}{\partial y}(x, y=b) &= \text{constant}\label{bc4} = P \text{...(5)}
\end{align}

Solution:

By separation of variables, let
\begin{equation}
u(x,y) = X(x)Y(y)
\end{equation}

Then, working on the standard process,

\begin{align}
X'' Y + X Y'' + k^2 X Y = 0 \\
\frac{X''}{X} + \frac{Y''}{Y} + k^2 = 0
\end{align}

let

\begin{align}
\frac{X''}{X} &= -\alpha^2 &\rightarrow X''+ \alpha^2 X &= 0 \\
\frac{Y''}{Y} &= -\beta^2 &\rightarrow Y''+ \beta^2 Y &= 0
\end{align}

Relation between \alpha and \beta,
\begin{equation}
\alpha ^2 + \beta^2 = k^2 \label{abrelation} \text{...(6)}
\end{equation}

Solve for X(x) and Y(y)

\begin{align}
X(x) &= C_1 \cos \alpha x + C_2 \sin \alpha x \\
Y(y) &= C_3 \cos \beta y + C_4 \sin \beta y
\end{align}

So that,

\begin{align}
u(x,y) &= X(x)Y(y) \\
&= (C_1 \cos \alpha x + C_2 \sin \alpha x)(C_3 \cos \beta y + C_4 \sin \beta y) \label{reduce1}
\end{align}

Determine coefficients C_1, C_2, C_3, C_4 by using boundary conditions (BC) eq(2-5),

First, use boundary condition in eq(4):
\begin{align}
u(x,y=0) &= 0 \\
(C_1 \cos \alpha x + C_2 \sin \alpha x)(C_3 \cdot 1 + C_4 \cdot 0) &= 0 \\
C_3(C_1 \cos \alpha x + C_2 \sin \alpha x) &= 0
\end{align}

We obtain,
\begin{equation}
C_3 = 0
\end{equation}

So that, u(x,y) reduce to
\begin{align}
u(x,y) &= C_4 \sin \beta y (C_1 \cos \alpha x + C_2 \sin \alpha x) \\
&= \sin \beta y (C_4C_1 \cos \alpha x + C_4C_2 \sin \alpha x) \\
&= \sin \beta y (C_5 \cos \alpha x + C_6 \sin \alpha x) \label{reduce2} \\
\frac{\partial u}{\partial x} (x,y) &= \alpha \sin \beta y (-C_5 \sin \alpha x + C_6 \cos \alpha x)
\end{align}

Second, use boundary condition in eq(2):
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial u}{\partial x}(x=0,y) &= 0 \\
\alpha \sin \beta y (-C_5 \cdot 0 + C_6 \cdot 1) &= 0 \\
C_6 \cdot \alpha \sin \beta y &= 0
\end{align}

We obtain,

\begin{equation}
C_6 = 0
\end{equation}

So that, u(x,y) reduce to
\begin{align}
u(x,y) &= C_5 \cos \alpha x \sin \beta y \\
\frac{\partial u}{\partial x} (x,y) &= - \alpha C_5 \sin \alpha x \sin \beta y
\end{align}

Third step, use boundary condition in eq(3):

\begin{align}
\frac{\partial u}{\partial x}(x=a,y) &= 0 \\
-\alpha C_5 \sin \alpha a \sin \beta y = 0
\end{align}

Which can be conclude that,

\begin{align}
\sin \alpha a &= 0 \\
\alpha a &= n \pi \\
\alpha_n &= \frac{n \pi}{a}
\end{align}

After we find \alpha, we can determine \beta from eq(6)

\begin{align}
\beta_n^2 = k^2 - \alpha_n^2
\end{align}

At this point, we can represent u(x,y) as infinite series by using principle of superposition

\begin{align}
u(x,y) &= \sum_{n = 0}^{\infty} C_n \cos \alpha_n x \sin \beta_n y \\
\frac{\partial u}{\partial y} (x,y) &= \sum_{n = 0}^{\infty} \beta_n C_n \cos \alpha_n x \cos \beta_n y
\end{align}

We can determine the unknowns C_n by using the last boundary condition in eq(5)

\begin{align}
P &= \frac{\partial u}{\partial y} (x,y = b) \\
&= \sum_{n = 0}^{\infty} \beta_n C_n \cos \alpha_n x \cos \beta_n b \\
&= \sum_{n = 0}^{\infty} \underbrace{\left(C_n\beta_n \cos \beta_n b \right)}_{\text{constant} = \bar{C_n}} \cos \alpha_n x \\
&= \sum_{n = 0}^{\infty} \bar{C_n}\cos \alpha_n x \text{...(7)}
\end{align}

Consider \bar{C_n} as coefficient of Fourier cosine series,

\begin{align}
P &= \frac{c_0}{2} + \sum_{ n = 1 }^{\infty} c_n \cos \frac{n\pi x}{a} \\
c_n &= \frac{2}{a} \int_{0}^{a} P \cdot \cos \frac{n\pi x}{a} dx
\end{align}

It is not so hard to find that,
\begin{align}
c_0 &= 2P \\
c_n &= 0
\end{align}

For me, the problem arise here. How can I find \bar{C_n} in eq(7)? Could anybody help me? What point that I am wrong? I feel very headache. Please, please, please help me.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Take a step back, you separated variables correctly but you must say that:
<br /> \frac{X&#039;&#039;}{X}+\frac{Y&#039;&#039;}{Y}+k^{2}=0\rightarrow \frac{X&#039;&#039;}{X}=\mu\rightarrow \frac{Y&#039;&#039;}{Y}+k^{2}=-\mu<br />
Start from this point.
 
You basically got it. Your equation (7) is setting a constant P equal to a Fourier cosine series. The lowest order term in such a series is a constant, and you even correctly identified the value c_0=2P; if you take half that, this IS your \bar C_0 value. Working that back to your original C_0, you get C_0 = \frac{\bar C_0}{\beta_0 \cos(\beta_0 b)}=\frac{P}{k\cos(k b)}, and all the other terms in the series are zero. This gives your final solution, u(x,y)=\frac{P}{k\cos(k b)}\sin(k y).

Sanity check this to make sure it solves your problem:
1. Solves the PDE? Yes.
2. Satisfies the \frac{\partial}{\partial x} boundary conditions? Yes, it doesn't depend on x, so the x partials are zero everywhere.
3. Zero on the bottom boundary? Yes, the sine makes sure that happens.
4. Has the right derivative value at the top boundary? Yes, the constants are such that the function outward normal derivative is equal to P at the top.

Its unsurprising that the solution is independent of x. There is no forcing in that direction, since the top boundary is moving up and down in unison at the frequency \omega. This launches plane waves down the sheet. Any variation in that top boundary condition will launch more interesting waves that move side to side and interact with the side boundaries.
 
rajb245 said:
You basically got it. Your equation (7) is setting a constant P equal to a Fourier cosine series. The lowest order term in such a series is a constant, and you even correctly identified the value c_0=2P; if you take half that, this IS your \bar C_0 value. Working that back to your original C_0, you get C_0 = \frac{\bar C_0}{\beta_0 \cos(\beta_0 b)}=\frac{P}{k\cos(k b)}, and all the other terms in the series are zero. This gives your final solution, u(x,y)=\frac{P}{k\cos(k b)}\sin(k y).

Sanity check this to make sure it solves your problem:
1. Solves the PDE? Yes.
2. Satisfies the \frac{\partial}{\partial x} boundary conditions? Yes, it doesn't depend on x, so the x partials are zero everywhere.
3. Zero on the bottom boundary? Yes, the sine makes sure that happens.
4. Has the right derivative value at the top boundary? Yes, the constants are such that the function outward normal derivative is equal to P at the top.

Its unsurprising that the solution is independent of x. There is no forcing in that direction, since the top boundary is moving up and down in unison at the frequency \omega. This launches plane waves down the sheet. Any variation in that top boundary condition will launch more interesting waves that move side to side and interact with the side boundaries.

rajb245, thank you very much.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
863
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
11K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K