Separation of Variables for Solving PDEs

In summary, the question asks for a temperature profile at time 0, which can be solved for using a Fourier series.
  • #1
joriarty
62
0
See attached image for the question and my working. Hopefully you can read it OK, I had to resize it to fit to the allowed dimensions.

I'm unsure how to proceed or if I have done something wrong previously - the initial and boundary conditions are tripping me up. The boundary conditions in red are given, I have written down the initial conditions (in the blue writing) by interpreting the question.

In past experience I should be able to end up with a Fourier series to solve, but I'm not sure how to get there! Could I please have a hint? Thanks :)
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1160.JPG
    IMG_1160.JPG
    33.5 KB · Views: 533
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
You got to

[tex]u(L,0) = C_1C_3\sin(\lambda L/ 2 \sqrt k) = 0[/tex]

Clearly [itex]C_1 = 0[/itex] or [itex]C_3 = 0[/itex] are not interesting solutions, so

[tex]\sin(\lambda L/ 2 \sqrt k) = 0[/tex]

[tex]\lambda L/ 2 \sqrt k = n\pi[/tex]

for n = 1, 2, ...

The question says the temperature profile is triangular at time 0, so you know the temperature for all values of x when t = 0, not just for x = 0, L/2, and L.

That's where the Fourier series solution comes from.
 
  • #3
Thanks for your reply. I'm not familiar with the term "triangular" - I presume this simply means that the temperature gradient between 0 < x < L/2 is uniform? Which would make it easy enough to get the temperature for any x at t = 0.

Also, I agree that having C1 or C3 equal to zero isn't very interesting, however I don't see how C1C3 can be anything but zero, as u(0,0) = C1C3 = 0. :confused:
 
  • #4
u(0,0) isn't equal to C1*C3, it's equal to C1*C3*sin(0). Since sin(0)=0, you can't conclude anything about C1 and C3 from this boundary condition.
 
  • #5
Shouldn't that be u(0,0) = C1*C2*sin(0) + C1*C3 = 0 ? C2 and C3 could be anything but I think this restricts C1 to being zero.
 
  • #6
Let's try again. I had read AlephZero's post, which is different than your derivation. First of all, you have defined too many constants - there are really only two independent constants. You should absorb C1 into C2 and C3 by defining two new constants C2' = C1*C2 and C3' = C1*C3. Then you only have two constants to solve for. But for now let's stick with the constants as you have defined them. As you say, the boundary condition at (0,0) tells you that C1*C3=0. If C1=0, then the whole solution is zero everywhere, which isn't the solution that you are looking for, so we discard this option. Any linear system always has this trivial solution (zero everywhere), but it isn't of any value. So we have C3 =0. Then the other condition at (L,0) tells us that C1*C2*Sin(Lambda*L/2*Sqrt(K))=0-C2'*Sin(Lambda*L/(2*Sqrt(K))), so as AlephZero says, you conclude that Lambda*L/(2*Sqrt(K)) = n*Pi. Again you discard the option that C2'=0 since it is just the trivial solution (zero everywhere). Does this make sense?
 
  • #7
Got it! Thanks :)
 

Related to Separation of Variables for Solving PDEs

1. What is the concept of separation of variables in PDEs?

The concept of separation of variables in PDEs involves breaking down a partial differential equation into simpler equations with a single variable. This allows us to solve the equation in parts, making it easier to find a solution.

2. How is separation of variables used to solve PDEs?

Separation of variables involves assuming that the solution to a PDE is a product of functions, each of which depends on only one variable. By substituting this into the PDE and rearranging the terms, we can solve for each individual function and then combine them to get the final solution.

3. What are the main advantages of using separation of variables to solve PDEs?

One of the main advantages of separation of variables is that it can be used to solve a wide range of PDEs, including linear and non-linear equations. It also allows us to break down a complex problem into smaller, more manageable parts, making it easier to find a solution.

4. Are there any limitations to using separation of variables in PDEs?

Yes, there are limitations to using separation of variables in PDEs. This method only works for certain types of PDEs, such as those with constant coefficients. It also may not provide an exact solution for more complex PDEs, and in some cases, additional techniques may be needed to find a solution.

5. Can separation of variables be used for boundary value problems in PDEs?

Yes, separation of variables can be used for boundary value problems in PDEs. By applying the method to both the PDE and the boundary conditions, we can find a solution that satisfies both the equation and the given boundary conditions. However, this may not always provide a unique solution and other methods may be needed.

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Differential Equations
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • Differential Equations
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Differential Equations
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Differential Equations
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Differential Equations
Replies
16
Views
964
  • Differential Equations
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Differential Equations
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • Differential Equations
Replies
3
Views
2K
Back
Top