Upload
others
View
9
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
i
Application of Perturbation Methods to Approximate the Solutions to
Static and Non-linear Oscillatory Problems
by
William Thomas Royle
An Engineering Project Submitted to the Graduate
Faculty of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ENGINEERING IN MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
Approved:
_________________________________________
Ernesto Gutierrez-Miravete, Project Adviser
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Hartford, CT
December, 2011
(For Graduation May 2012)
ii
CONTENTS
Application of Perturbation Methods to Approximate the Solutions to Static and Non-
linear Oscillatory Problems .......................................................................................... i
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ iv
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... v
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ................................................................................................. vii
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... viii
1. Introduction.................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background ........................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Project Scope ...................................................................................................... 3
2. Methodology ................................................................................................................ 5
2.1 Project Methodology .......................................................................................... 5
2.2 The Perturbation Method Explained with an Algebraic Equation ..................... 6
2.2.1 The Perturbation Method Applied to the Solution of an Algebraic
Equation ................................................................................................. 6
2.2.2 Exact Solution of the Algebraic Equation .............................................. 8
2.2.3 Perturbation Approximation Compared to Exact Solution .................... 8
2.2.4 Perturbation Approximation’s Small Parameter Sensitivity ................ 10
3. Results........................................................................................................................ 12
3.1 Brief Introduction to Non-dimensionalizing Differential Equations ............... 12
3.2 Linear Ordinary Differential Equation (Boundary Layer Problem) ................ 13
3.2.1 Perturbation Approximation................................................................. 14
3.2.2 Analytical Solution............................................................................... 17
3.2.3 Perturbation Approximation Compared to Analytical Solution........... 19
3.3 Unforced Duffing Equation.............................................................................. 20
3.3.1 Background .......................................................................................... 20
3.3.2 Regular Perturbation Approximation ................................................... 21
3.3.3 Poincare-Lindstedt Method .................................................................. 24
iii
3.3.4 Numerical Solution .............................................................................. 26
3.3.5 Perturbation Approximation Compared to Analytical Solution........... 26
3.4 Van Der Pol Equation ...................................................................................... 34
3.4.1 Background .......................................................................................... 34
3.4.2 Regular Perturbation Approximation ................................................... 34
3.4.3 Poincare-Lindstedt Method .................................................................. 37
3.4.4 Multiple Scales Method ....................................................................... 38
3.4.5 Numerical Solution .............................................................................. 42
3.4.6 Perturbation Approximation Compared to Analytical Solution........... 42
4. Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 51
References ........................................................................................................................ 53
A. Appendices ................................................................................................................ 54
A.1 Unforced Duffing Equation Numeric MAPLE Code ......................................... 55
A.2 Van Der Pol Equation Numeric MAPLE Code .................................................. 58
A.3 Numerical Value Tables for the Ordinary Differential Equation ....................... 61
A.4 Numerical Value Tables for the Duffing Equation ............................................. 62
A.5 Numerical Value Tables for the Van Der Pol Equation ..................................... 66
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Perturbation and Exact Solutions to the Algebraic Equation .............................. 9
Table 2: Analytical Values Determined for the Ordinary Differential Equation ............ 19
Table 3: Perturbation and Exact Solutions to the Ordinary Differential Equation .......... 61
Table 4: Perturbation and Numerical Values Determined for the Unforced Duffing
Equation (ε=.01) .............................................................................................................. 62
Table 5: Perturbation and Numerical Values Determined for the Unforced Duffing
Equation (ε=.05) .............................................................................................................. 64
Table 6: Perturbation and Numerical Values Determined for the Van Der Pol Equation
(ε=.01) .............................................................................................................................. 66
Table 7: Perturbation and Numerical Values Determined for the Van Der Pol Equation
(ε=.05) .............................................................................................................................. 68
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Comparative Solutions Plots for the Algebraic Equation .................................. 9
Figure 2: Perturbation Percent Error Plots for the Algebraic Equation ........................... 10
Figure 3: Comparative Solutions Plots for the Algebraic Equation as ε >1 .................... 11
Figure 4: Boundary Condition Visualization for Linear Ordinary Differential Equation 15
Figure 5: Comparative Solutions Plots for the Ordinary Differential Equation .............. 19
Figure 6: Regular Perturbation Percent Error Plot for the Ordinary Differential Equation
......................................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 7: Regular Perturbation versus Numeric Solution for Unforced Duffing Equation
(ε=.01) .............................................................................................................................. 27
Figure 8: Regular Perturbation versus Numeric Solution Percent Error Plot for Unforced
Duffing Equation (ε=.01) ................................................................................................. 28
Figure 9: Poincare-Lindstedt versus Numeric Solution for Unforced Duffing Equation
(ε=.01) .............................................................................................................................. 28
Figure 10: Poincare-Lindstedt versus Numeric Solution Percent Error Plot for Unforced
Duffing Equation (ε=.01) ................................................................................................. 29
Figure 11: Regular Perturbation versus Numeric Solution for Unforced Duffing Equation
(ε=.05) .............................................................................................................................. 30
Figure 12: Regular Perturbation versus Numeric Solution Percent Error Plot for
Unforced Duffing Equation (ε=.05)................................................................................. 31
Figure 13: Poincare-Lindstedt versus Numeric Solution for Unforced Duffing Equation
(ε=.05) .............................................................................................................................. 32
Figure 14: Poincare-Lindstedt versus Numeric Solution Percent Error Plot for Unforced
Duffing Equation (ε=.05) ................................................................................................. 33
Figure 15: Regular Perturbation versus Numeric Solution for Van Der Pol Equation
(ε=.01) .............................................................................................................................. 43
Figure 16: Regular Perturbation versus Numeric Solution Absolute Error Plot for Van
Der Pol Equation (ε=.01) ................................................................................................. 44
Figure 17: Multiple Scales versus Numeric Solution for Van Der Pol Equation (ε=.01) 45
Figure 18: Multiple Scales versus Numeric Solution Absolute Error Plot for Van Der Pol
Equation (ε=.01) .............................................................................................................. 46
vi
Figure 19: Perturbation versus Numeric Solution for Van Der Pol Equation (ε=.05) .... 47
Figure 20: Perturbation versus Numeric Solution Absolute Error Plot for Van Der Pol
Equation (ε=.05) .............................................................................................................. 48
Figure 21: Multiple Scales versus Numeric Solution for Van Der Pol Equation (ε=.05) 49
Figure 22: Figure 18: Multiple Scales versus Numeric Solution Absolute Error Plot for
Van Der Pol Equation (ε=.05) ......................................................................................... 50
vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I would like to thank my family for their support over the course of my graduate study
especially during this final project. I would also like to thank the faculty and staff at
Rensselaer for their excellent education program. I would like to especially thank
Professor Gutierrez-Miravete for advising me throughout the duration of the project and
for making the cohort program a success. Additionally, I thank General Dynamics
Electric Boat Corporation and my work supervisor Thomas Lambert for supporting me
throughout my degree. I would like to thank one of my dearest friends and co-workers
Bernard Nasser Jr. for encouraging me to further my education by attending Rensselaer.
Finally my deepest thanks go to Jerold Lewandowski for spending countless time
mentoring me throughout my educational experience at Rensselaer.
viii
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this project is to learn and apply perturbation theory in order to
approximate solutions to engineering problems which would otherwise be intractable
through the use of traditional analytical methods. The report first outlines the technique
of perturbation theory with the aid of an algebraic equation. An introduction is provided
in the technique of non-dimensionalizing differential equations and how the ε term is
developed. Perturbation theory will then be applied to a linear ordinary differential
equation boundary layer problem. The boundary layer problem demonstrates the
technique required to match inner and outer solutions as well as the technique used to
develop a composite solution. Next, approximate solutions for several variations of a
non-linear mass spring dampener systems using various perturbation methods were
determined. The unforced Duffing and the Van Der Pol equations were investigated.
When regular perturbation approximations result with secular terms, a perturbation
approximation without the presence of secular terms will be developed through the use
of special perturbation methods; namely the Poincare-Lindstedt and Multiple Scales
methods. All problems investigated are also solved analytically or numerically as and
compared and contrasted to the approximations found through the use of perturbation
theory.
1
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
Perturbation methods, also known as asymptotic, allow the simplification of
complex mathematical problems. Use of perturbation theory will allow approximate
solutions to be determined for problems which cannot be solved by traditional analytical
methods. Second order ordinary linear differential equations are solved by engineers and
scientists routinely. However in many cases, real life situations can require much more
difficult mathematical models, such as non-linear differential equations.
Numerical methods used on a computer of today are capable of solving extremely
complex mathematical problems; however, they are not perfect. The numerical methods
of today can still run into a multitude of problems ranging from diverging solutions to
tracking wrong solutions. Numerical methods on a computer do not provide much
insight to the engineers or scientists running them. Perturbation theory can offer an
alternative approach to solving certain types of problems. Solving problems analytically
often helps an engineer or scientist to understand a physical problem better, and may
help improve future procedures and designs used to solve their problems. Also, in a time
where there are tough economic circumstances, it is not unreasonable to consider that
future employers may prefer to rely on human ingenuity over the necessity of
continually purchasing expensive software package licenses to solve problems in which
analytical approximations can be made.
The first step required to start the implementation of perturbation theory non-
dimensionalizing of the governing equation. Once the equation is non-dimensionalized,
perturbation theory requires taking advantage of a “small” parameter that appears in an
equation. This parameter, usually denoted “ε” is on the order of 0 < ε << 1.
Next, through educated assumptions on the order of magnitude of terms, a rough
approximate solution is determined through the use of logical elimination of low
impacting terms. The perturbation method then solves this reduced “outer problem”.
Next an “inner solution” is constructed to satisfy the other constraints of the problem. A
composite solution is obtained through a matching process.
2
Once a rough approximate solution is found, a “correction factor” may then be
determined using an order of magnitude analysis. While “correction factors” can be used
repeatedly, it is important to note, only a limited accuracy may be obtained through
perturbation theory. Correction terms may eventually result in a perturbation
approximation which diverges. This is unlike a series solution, which converges to the
answer as the number of terms goes to infinity.
To help understand conceptually the mechanics of perturbation, the following
example commonly known to most graduate level students is utilized. The equation of
continuity in Cartesian Coordinates is as follows:
[1-1-1]
The Navier Stokes equations for a Newtonian fluid with constant density and viscosity in
Cartesian coordinates is as follows:
[1-1-2]
[1-1-3]
[1-1-4]
Assuming a steady, constant density and viscosity, and two dimensional flow, the
continuity and Navier stokes equations reduce to the following:
[1-1-5]
[ 1-1-6]
[1-1-7]
Equation [1-1-4] is totally eliminated.
3
These equations are often used to model flow in boundary layer regions. Often
times, these equations are further simplified by engineers and scientist depending on the
physics of the problem being solved. This simplification can be performed by an order of
magnitude analysis. For example, the velocity in the vertical plane may be extremely
small compared to the velocity in the horizontal direction, therefore terms that carry the
vertical velocity term will be reduced to zero. While the vertical velocity may not be
exactly zero, this assumption will introduce some error into an eventual approximation.
The problem can be further simplified in this manor until an analytical solution is
obtainable. The mechanics of perturbation theory follows this same methodology
allowing analytical approximations to be found for equations which would otherwise be
impossible to solve without the use of a computer.
1.2 Project Scope
This objective of this project is to study, learn and introduce the perturbation
method with the support of simple algebraic equations. The process of non-
dimensionalizing prior to the start of developing a perturbation approximation will also
be addressed.
Once the perturbation method is introduced, it will be used to develop a set of
approximate solutions for an ordinary differential equation (boundary layer problem),
the Duffing equation and the Van Der Pol equation. Advanced perturbation methods will
be used to eliminate the burden of secular terms that appear in the devolvement of any
regular perturbation approximations.
The solutions obtained from the perturbation approximation are then compared to
analytical or numerical solutions obtained from the same problems throughout the study.
This allows confirmation of the correct application of the perturbation method, and for
the solutions to be compared and contrasted.
4
The following is a list of the problems to be solved:
Algebraic Equation [1]
[1-2-1]
This has relevance because it is a simple example in which to introduce perturbation
theory.
Linear Ordinary Differential Equation [1]
[1-2-2]
This describes a linear mass spring dampener oscillatory problem.
Unforced Duffing Equation [2]
[1-2-3]
Where α is consider to be a constant. This is a model of a non-linear restoration force
type problem.
Van Der Pol Equation [Reference 3]
[ 1-2-4]
This represents a non-linear “stick” oscillatory problem.
5
2. Methodology
2.1 Project Methodology
A polynomial algebraic equation will be solved using the traditional quadratic formula.
Next, solutions for the same equation will be approximated following the techniques of
perturbation theory. This will be done to develop the understanding of the methodology
required.
An analytical solution can be found for the ordinary linear differential equation by
using traditional methods for solving ordinary differential equations; however numerical
solutions will be required for the Duffing and Van Der Pol equations since they are non-
linear differential equations.
Microsoft Excel™ will be used to graph and compare analytical/numerical solutions to
the approximate solutions obtained through the use of perturbation theory. Maplesoft’s
MAPLE™ will be used to find numerical solutions as needed.
Sometimes during the development of a perturbation approximation, secular terms may
appear causing the perturbation approximation to diverge from the actual solution as time
increases. Secular terms are terms that grow as the approximation progresses without bound.
For these problems the Poincare-Lindstedt method will be used to develop perturbation
approximations without influence of secular terms. If the Poincare-Lindstedt method is
unable to eliminate all of the secular terms, the Multiple Scales method will be utilized.
6
2.2 The Perturbation Method Explained with an Algebraic
Equation
Perturbation methods find approximate solutions to problems by taking advantage
of a small parameter that appears in the initial problem. This parameter, usually denoted
“ ” must be on the order of 0 < << 1. The perturbation method is most easily
understood through a simple algebraic equation. First, equation [1-2-1] is reintroduced as
seen below:
[1-2-1]
2.2.1 The Perturbation Method Applied to the Solution of an Algebraic Equation
Leading Order Solution:
Since the primary assumption of the perturbation method is that is very small, the
most obvious way to approximate a solution to [1-2-1] is to set . This reduces to:
[2-2-1]
Solving for , yields the leading order roots:
[2-2-2]
1st Order Solution:
Assuming δ(x) is some correction factor, the second solution approximation is as seen
below:
[2-2-2]
It is important to note that the correction factor that is applied should always be smaller
than the leading term. Upon substitution of the leading order solution plus a correction,
δ(x), into the governing differential equation δ(x) is determined to be of the order as
goes to zero.
Since this is a second degree polynomial equation, it is known that there are two
roots. Both roots are determined through perturbation the same way by substitution of
[2-2-2] into [1-2-1]. This calculation will further develop the positive root. Substitution
of the positive root seen in [2-2-2] into [1-2-1] yields:
7
[2-2-3]
Expanding [2-2-3] yields:
[2-2-3]
Since both and are small numbers, their products are extremely small. Using
an order of magnitude analysis, and are eliminated from [2-2-3]. These
extremely small terms are known as higher order terms (HOTs). In perturbation
nomenclature these HOTs are often abbreviated as “…” since they carry little
significance to the solution resulting in often elimination. Solving the remainder for [2-
2-3] for yields:
[2-2-4]
Substitution of back into [2-2-2] for the positive root yields:
[2-2-4]
2nd
Order Solution:
Continuing with the positive root solution, the 3rd
solution approximation is
assumed to be:
[2-2-5]
Substitution of the positive root seen in [2-2-5] into [1-2-1] yields:
[2-2-6]
Expanding [2-2-6] yields:
[2-2-7]
Again since both and are small numbers, their products are extremely small.
These HOTs are eliminated from [2-2-7]. [2-2-7] is then used to solve for yielding:
[2-2-8]
Substitution of back into [2-2-5] for the yields the 3rd
positive root
approximation:
8
[2-2-9]
It is important to note that each correction term is smaller than that of the preceding
term. Larger correction terms can be an indication that either an algebraic error has
occurred, or that a mistake could have occurred during the elimination of the HOTs.
2.2.2 Exact Solution of the Algebraic Equation
Since this is a second degree polynomial, obviously the quadratic formula can be
used to determine the exact roots. The exact roots to [1-2-1] are:
[2-2-10]
2.2.3 Perturbation Approximation Compared to Exact Solution
The 1st term, 2
nd term, and 3
rd term perturbation approximations obtained in section 2.2.1
were compared to the exact solution determined in 2.2.2. Percent error was calculated
for each perturbation approximation. Percent Error was determined by the following
formula:
[2-2-11]
The actual value was taken to be the root solved by use of the quadratic formula.
Table 1 below was developed by utilizing equations [2-2-1], [2-2-4], [2-2-9], [2-2-10]
and [2-2-11].
9
Table 1: Perturbation and Exact Solutions to the Algebraic Equation
Small Parameter
Exact Perturbation 1st
Term Perturbation 2nd
Term Perturbation 3rd
Term
ε Positive
Root Positive
Root %Error
R1 Positive
Root %Error
R1 Positive
Root %Error
R1
0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0
0.000001 1 1 5E-05 1 -1.3E-11 1 0
0.00001 0.999995 1 0.0005 0.999995 -1.3E-09 0.999995 0
0.0001 0.99995 1 0.005 0.99995 -1.3E-07 0.99995 1.11E-14
0.001 0.9995 1 0.050012 0.9995 -1.3E-05 0.9995 7.89E-13
0.01 0.995012 1 0.50125 0.995 -0.00126 0.995013 7.85E-09
0.1 0.951249 1 5.124922 0.95 -0.13132 0.95125 8.2E-05
1 0.618034 1 61.8034 0.5 -19.0983 0.625 1.127124
10 0.09902 1 909.902 -4 -4139.61 8.5 8484.167
Plots of the perturbation approximation and exact solutions for 0 ε 1 can be
seen in Figure: 1.
Figure 1: Comparative Solutions Plots for the Algebraic Equation
Note that for any given value of ε the accuracy of the perturbation approximation
increases with the amount of corrections that were determined. The exact, 2nd
term and
3rd
term approximations are nearly indistinguishable at this magnification. Perturbations
approximations, unlike a typical series expansion, do not necessarily always become
0.94
0.95
0.96
0.97
0.98
0.99
1
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Cal
cula
ted
Ro
ot
ε
Exact
Perturbation 1st Term
Perturbation 2nd Term
Perturbation 3rd Term
10
more precise as additional terms are added to the approximation. Perturbation solutions
are developed in powers of ε (in the limit as ε goes to zero), whereas series solutions are
developed in powers of . This distinction leads to differences in solution convergence.
Engineers and scientists should be wary that distinct limitations exist with the accuracy
that can be achieved with perturbation approximations.
Plots of the percent error of the 2nd
and 3rd
term perturbation approximation for 0
ε 1 can be seen below in Figure: 2.
Figure 2: Perturbation Percent Error Plots for the Algebraic Equation
2.2.4 Perturbation Approximation’s Small Parameter Sensitivity
One of the major limitations of the perturbation method is that as the value of ε
approaches a number on the order of 1 or larger; the accuracy of the perturbation
approximation rapidly decreases. This can be seen clearly in Figure: 3 which was plotted
with data from Table 1 in Section 2.2.3.
-0.15
-0.13
-0.11
-0.09
-0.07
-0.05
-0.03
-0.01
0.01
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
% E
rro
r
ε
Perturbation 2nd Term
Perturbation 3rd Term
11
Figure 3: Comparative Solutions Plots for the Algebraic Equation as ε >1
-5
-3
-1
1
3
5
7
9
0 2 4 6 8 10
Cal
cula
ted
Ro
ot
ε
Exact
Perturbation 1st Term
Perturbation 2nd Term
Perturbation 3rd Term
12
3. Results
3.1 Brief Introduction to Non-dimensionalizing Differential
Equations
Non-dimensionalizing the equation is the first step required in perturbation
methods. To introduce how this is to be accomplished, the typical linear ordinary
differential equation from a mass spring dash-pot dampener system is introduced below.
[3-1-1]
Here denotes the mass of the block, is the viscous friction coefficient of the
dampener, and is the spring coefficient. Since this equation will become non-
dimensionalized, the starting units can be either all SI or all English.
Assuming that:
[3-1-2]
And
[3-1-3]
Therefore:
[3-1-4]
Where and are non-dimensionalized values and and are dimensionalized
variables. It follows that utilizing the chain rule the first derivative of a function with
respect to t is:
[3-1-5]
And the second derivative of some function with respect to t is:
[3-1-6]
Substituting [3-1-6] and [3-1-5] into equation [3-1-1] yields:
[3-1-7]
Dividing [3-1-7] through by k and L yields:
13
[3-1-8]
Since the goal is to remove the dimensions for all the coefficients, let:
[3-1-9]
And substituting [3-1-9] into [3-1-8] simplifies to:
[3-1-10]
For the perturbation method to work there needs to be a small parameter ε
introduced into the problem. The first term is selected to be written with ε since all terms
of [3-1-10] have a coefficient of 1. Letting:
[3-1-11]
And substituting [3-1-11] into [3-1-10] yields:
[3-1-12]
Note from inspection of equation [3-1-11] that there is combination of
parameters that form . Perturbation methods can be applied to equation [3-1-12] with
relatively low error if the mass or spring constant in [3-1-1] is relatively very small, or if
the viscous friction coefficient of the dampener is relatively high. All governing
equations evaluated in this project were given and investigated in non-dimensional form.
3.2 Linear Ordinary Differential Equation (Boundary Layer
Problem)
Even though it is relatively straightforward to obtain exact solutions to linear
second order ordinary differential equations, it is valuable to address that not all
perturbation problems can be solved exactly the same way. While the Duffing and Van
Der Pol problems discussed in this paper are non-linear equations which solutions are
intractable through normal analytical methods, equation [1-2-2] was specifically chosen
in order to introduce the technique of matching and composite solution development.
The method of determining a composite solution Equation [1-2-2] is notably similar to
the equation [3-1-12] which was non-dimensionalized in section 3-1 of this paper. Re-
14
introducing the linear ordinary differential equation [1-2-2] as seen below with “ ” as
the dependent variable and “ ” as the independent variable:
[1-2-2]
The initial conditions used to solve this problem as follows:
[3-2-1]
And
[3-2-2]
3.2.1 Perturbation Approximation
Determining the “Outer Solution”:
Setting reduces equation [1-2-2] to:
[3-2-3]
Guessing the solution:
[3-2-4]
Substituting [3-2-4] into [3-2-3] yields
[3-2-5]
Since = -1, the general form solution of the differential equation is:
[3-2-6]
Since there is only one root, equation [3-2-6] simplifies to:
[3-2-7]
With this solution, only one of the boundary conditions from the initial problem can
be enforced. Using equation [3-2-1] and solving for in equation [3-2-7] results in
=0, which is firstly a trivial solution, but also would violate the initial problem as
shown in Figure: (4).
15
Figure 4: Boundary Condition Visualization for Linear Ordinary Differential
Equation
Figure: 4 shows that is a positive value,
is a positive value, and
is also a
positive value (since the function is concave up). If this was true, then:
[3-2-8]
Equation [3-2-8] violates the initial problem in equation [1-2-2] and therefore
equation [3-2-1] is not the proper boundary condition for equation [3-2-7].
Using the boundary condition in equation [3-2-2] to solve for in equation [3-2-7]
results in:
[3-2-9]
Substitution of [3-2-9] into [3-2-7] yields the following “outer solution”:
[3-2-10]
Determining the “Inner Solution”:
To determine the inner solution, magnification at is required. Letting:
[3-2-11]
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Y(X
)
X
Initial Conditions
16
Utilizing the chain rule on equation [3-2-11] follows:
[3-2-12]
And:
[3-2-13]
Substitution of equations [3-2-12] and [3-2-13] into equation [1-2-2] yields:
[3-2-14]
Assuming that the first two terms balance and solving for follows:
[3-2-15]
Simplifying to solve for yields:
[3-2-16]
The two terms that were assumed to balance were:
[3-2-17]
It is then solved by guessing the general solution:
[3-2-18]
Substituting equation [3-2-18] into [3-2-17] and simplifying yields:
[3-2-19]
Since =-2 and 0, the general solution of the equation takes the form:
[3-2-20]
Using the remaining boundary condition in equation [3-2-1] and solving for yields:
[3-2-21]
Substitution of equation [3-2-21] into equation [3-2-20] yields the following “inner
solution”:
[3-2-22]
17
Since two separate solutions, equations [3-2-10] and [3-2-22], have been
obtained; matching is required to be performed in order to develop a composite solution
( ). To match the solution, the limit as the outer solution approaches is
set equal o the limit as the inner solution approaches :
[3-2-23]
This reduces to:
[3-2-24]
Equation [3-2-24] is not only used to determine the value of , but it also determines the
common solution of the limits of the inner and outer solution ( ).
[3-2-25]
The composite solution is determined by combining the inner and outer solutions and by
shifting the solutions by removing the common solution:
[3-2-26]
Combining equations [3-2-10], [3-2-11], [3-2-22], [3-2-24], [3-2-25] and [3-2-26] and
simplifying yields the composite solution:
[3-2-27]
3.2.2 Analytical Solution
Since this is a second order linear ordinary differential equation, traditional
analytical methods can be used to find a solution. Guessing the solution:
[3-2-28]
And substituting equation [3-2-28] into equation [1-2-2] and simplifying yields:
[3-2-29]
Utilizing the quadratic equation roots and can be solved for:
[3-2-30]
And
18
[3-2-31]
Since both roots are real numbers, the general solution takes the form:
[3-2-32]
Substitution of equations [3-2-30] and [3-2-31] into equation [3-2-32] yields the
following:
[3-2-33]
Enforcement of the initial condition seen in equation [3-2-1] to equation [3-2-33] yields:
[3-2-34]
Substituting equation [3-2-34] into [3-2-33] and enforcing the initial condition seen in
equation [3-2-2] into equation [3-2-33] yields:
[3-2-35]
Solving equation [3-2-35] for and than using equation [3-2-34] to solve for yields:
[3-2-36]
[3-2-37]
Substitution of equations [3-2-36] and [3-2-37] into equation [3-2-33] yields the final
analytical solution:
[3-2-38]
19
3.2.3 Perturbation Approximation Compared to Analytical Solution
Letting ε = .01, values determined from equations [3-2-30], [3-2-31], [3-2-36],
and [3-2-37] are determined in Table 2 below:
Table 2: Analytical Values Determined for the Ordinary Differential Equation
Small Parameter
Analytical Roots Analytical Constants
ε Root 1 Root 2 C1 C2
0.01 -1.00505 -198.99494 2.73204 -2.73205
Data from Table 2 was used in conjunction with equations [2-2-11], [3-2-27],
and [3-2-38] to create the comparative data plots seen in Table 3. The formation of the
boundary layer become apparent upon the inspection of the roots in Table 2. Since Root
2 is large in magnitude compared to Root one, the influence of the solution dependent on
Root 2 on the total solution is quickly reduced as increases. In Table 3, this boundary
layer can be seen for values up to .023038. Table 3 can be found in Appendix A.3.
Plots of the composite perturbation approximation and the analytical solutions for
the linear ordinary differential equation can be seen below in Figure: 5.
Figure 5: Comparative Solutions Plots for the Ordinary Differential Equation
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Y
X
Analytical Roots
Perturbation
20
A plot of the composite perturbation approximation’s percent error compared to the
analytical solution for the linear ordinary differential equation can be seen below in
Figure: 6.
Figure 6: Regular Perturbation Percent Error Plot for the Ordinary Differential
Equation
3.3 Unforced Duffing Equation
3.3.1 Background
The Duffing Oscillator is a differential equation that used to model non-linear
restoration force type problems. The Duffing Oscillator can be used to approximate the
physics of a pendulum problem [2].
Re-introducing the Duffing equation [1-2-3] as seen below with “ ” as the dependent
variable and “ ” as the independent variable:
[1-2-3]
The initial conditions used to solve this problem are as follows:
[3-3-1]
And
-0.6
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
% E
rro
r
X
%Error
21
[3-3-2]
3.3.2 Regular Perturbation Approximation
Leading Order Solution:
Setting reduces equation [1-2-3] to:
[3-3-3]
Guessing the solution:
[3-3-4]
Substituting [3-3-4] into [3-3-3] yields
[3-3-5]
Solving for:
[3-3-6]
The general form solution of the differential equation is:
[3-3-7]
The derivative of equation [3-3-7] with respect to is then:
[3-3-8]
Using the boundary condition in equation [3-3-1] to solve for in equation [3-3-7], and
boundary condition in equation [3-3-2] to solve for in equation [3-3-8] results in:
[3-3-9]
And
[3-3-10]
Substitution of equations [3-3-9] and [3-3-10] into equation [3-3-7] yields:
[3-3-11]
1st Order Solution:
22
Assuming δ(x) is some correction factor, the second solution approximation is as seen
below:
[3-3-12]
The derivative of equation [3-3-12] with respect to is then:
[3-3-13]
The second derivative of equation [3-2-12] with respect to is then:
[3-3-14]
Using the boundary condition in equation [3-3-1] to solve for in equation [3-3-12],
and boundary condition in equation [3-3-2] to solve for
in equation [3-3-13]
results in:
[3-3-15]
And
[3-3-16]
Substituting equation [3-3-14] and [3-3-12] into equation [1-2-3] and simplifying yields:
[3-3-17]
Expanding yields:
=
[3-3-18]
Eliminating the HOTs from equation [3-3-18], the remaining terms are substituted back
into equation [3-3-17], which is re-written as:
[3-3-19]
Letting:
[3-3-20]
And utilizing a combination of all the following common trigonometry identities:
23
[3-3-21]
[3-3-22]
[3-3-23]
[3-3-24]
[3-3-25]
can be expanded to:
[3-3-26]
Substitution of equation [3-3-26] into [3-3-19] and [3-3-20] yields:
[3-3-27]
Solving for as a traditional ordinary differential equation through superposition:
[3-3-28]
Noting that general solution takes the same form as equation [3-2-7], yields:
[3-3-29]
Guessing the particular solution:
[3-3-30]
The second derivatives of equation [3-3-28] with respect to are then:
[3-3-31]
Substitution of equations [3-3-30] and [3-3-31] into equation [3-3-27] and solving for
coefficients , , and yeild:
24
[3-3-32]
[3-3-33]
[3-3-34]
Combining equations [3-3-28], [3-3-29], [3-3-30], [3-3-32], [3-3-33], and [3-3-34] and
simplifying with equation [3-3-20] yields:
[3-3-35]
Taking the derivative of equation [3-3-35] with respect to yields:
[3-3-36]
Using the boundary conditions for equations [3-3-15] and [3-3-16] in equations [3-3-35]
and [3-3-36] and solving for and yields:
[3-3-37]
And
[3-3-38]
Combining equations [3-3-12], [3-3-35], [3-3-37], and [3-3-38] yields the 1st order
perturbation approximation is:
[3-3-39]
3.3.3 Poincare-Lindstedt Method
Upon a more detailed inspection of the 1st order perturbation approximation
developed in equation [3-3-39], not that as increases to a large number, the magnitude
of the 1st order correction factor increases. As progresses the
term (secular
25
term), even though multiplied by small number , will eventually dominate the
approximation. This will limit the range of in which the perturbation approximation
will be effective. In order to develop a perturbation approximation in which the negative
effect of the secular term can be minimized as increases, the Poincare-Lindstedt
method is used. Utilizing this method the frequency will be shifted which therefore
will reduce the error from the secular term. As continues to increase, more frequency
corrections need to be determined to further reduce error. Assuming is the correction
to , new variable is:
[3-3-40]
Using the chain rule, the first and second derivatives of [3-3-40] with respect to are:
[3-3-41]
And
[3-3-42]
Allowing reduces equation [1-2-3] to equation [3-3-3]. Substituting [3-3-42] into
[3-3-1] yields:
[3-3-43]
Knowing that the shift and are very small, utilizing an order of magnitude analysis
equation [3-3-43] simplifies to:
[3-3-44]
Following the same mathematical analysis as in section 3.3.2, the first Poincare-
Lindstedt leading order solution is determined to be:
[3-3-45]
Assuming θ is some correction factor, the second solution approximation is as seen
below:
[3-3-46]
The second derivative of equation [3-3-46] with respect to is:
26
[3-3-47]
Substitution of equations [3-3-42], [3-3-46] and [3-3-47] into equation [1-2-3] yields:
[3-3-48]
Expanding and eliminating the HOTs in equation [3-3-58] in the same manner as
performed in section 3.3.2 and simplification yields:
[3-3-49]
Expansion of as performed in section 3.3.2 and rearrangement yields:
[3-3-50]
Solving for in order to prevent the formation of the secular term yields:
[3-3-51]
Combining equations [3-3-40], [3-3-45] and [3-3-51] result in the Poincare-Lindstedt
approximation:
[3-3-52]
3.3.4 Numerical Solution
The numerical solution was obtained utilizing MAPLE’s built in Fehlberg fourth-
fifth order Runge-Kutta method with degree four interpolant. The MAPLE file used to
perform the numerical analysis can be seen attached in Appendix A.1.
3.3.5 Perturbation Approximation Compared to Analytical Solution
For oscillator solutions absolute error is used for comparison in lieu of percent
error. The absolute error is determined by the following relation:
[3-3-53]
Case 1: ε = .01
27
Letting ε = .01 and α =1, equations [3-3-39], [3-3-52] and [3-3-53] as well as the
numerical solution developed in section 3.2.4 was used in order to produce Table 4 in
Appendix A.4.
The regular perturbation approximation seen in Table 4 is plotted together with
the numerical solution that was obtained with MAPLE in Figure: 7 below.
Figure 7: Regular Perturbation versus Numeric Solution for Unforced Duffing
Equation (ε=.01)
It is important to note that as increases, the tradition perturbation
approximation tends to rapidly increase in error with respect to the the numerical
solution. The absolute error plot of the regular perturbation versus the numerical solution
is seen in Figure: 8.
-1.2
-0.7
-0.2
0.3
0.8
1.3
0 50 100 150 200
Y
X
Y Numerical
Y Perturbation
28
Figure 8: Regular Perturbation versus Numeric Solution Percent Error Plot for
Unforced Duffing Equation (ε=.01)
The rapid error increase in the regular perturbation approximation is a result of
the secular term in equation identified in [3-3-39].
The Poincare-Lindstedt perturbation approximation results shown in Table 4 are plotted
together with the numerical solution that was obtained with MAPLE in Figure: 9.
Figure 9: Poincare-Lindstedt versus Numeric Solution for Unforced Duffing
Equation (ε=.01)
-0.25
-0.15
-0.05
0.05
0.15
0.25
0 50 100 150 200
Erro
r
X
Absolute Error (Perturbation Numerical)
-1.2
-0.7
-0.2
0.3
0.8
1.3
0 50 100 150 200
Y
X
Y Numerical
Y Lindstedt
29
It is important to note that as increases, the Poincare-Lindstedt perturbation
approximation track the numerical solution far better than the regular perturbation
approximation. The absolute error plot of the Poincare-Lindstedt perturbation versus the
numeric solution is seen in Figure: 10.
Figure 10: Poincare-Lindstedt versus Numeric Solution Percent Error Plot for
Unforced Duffing Equation (ε=.01)
It is important to note the Poincare-Lindstedt method percent error also increases
with as the with the regular perturbation approximation however the magnitude of the
percent error is as much as two orders of magnitude smaller. As is continued to
progress the error of the Poincare-Lindstedt approximation can be reduced by further
correcting the frequency as needed.
Case 2: ε = .05
Letting ε = .05 and α =1, equations [3-3-39], [3-3-52] and [3-3-53] as well as the
numerical solution developed in section 3.2.4 was used in order to produce Table 5 in
Appendix A.4.
-0.002
-0.0015
-0.001
-0.0005
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0.002
0 50 100 150 200
Erro
r
X
Absolute Error (Lindstedt to Numerical)
30
The regular perturbation approximation seen in Table 5 is plotted together with
the numerical solution that was obtained with MAPLE in Figure: 11 below.
Figure 11: Regular Perturbation versus Numeric Solution for Unforced Duffing
Equation (ε=.05)
Since ε has increased in size, the secular term found in the regular perturbation
approximation now dominates the solution faster than seen in Case 1. The absolute error
plot of the regular perturbation versus the numeric solution is seen in Figure: 12.
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
0 50 100 150 200 Y
X
Y Numerical
Y Perturbation
31
Figure 12: Regular Perturbation versus Numeric Solution Percent Error Plot for
Unforced Duffing Equation (ε=.05)
The rapid error increase in the regular perturbation approximation is a result of
the secular term in equation identified in [3-3-39]. Since ε is now larger, the secular term
can influence the perturbation approximation faster. This causes a higher order of error
magnitude to appear in the approximation at the same values of . The range of in both
Cases 1 and 2 are identical.
The Poincare-Lindstedt perturbation approximation seen in Table 5 is plotted
together with the numerical solution that was obtained with MAPLE in Figure: 13
below.
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 50 100 150 200 Err
or
X
Absolute Error (Perturbation Numerical)
32
Figure 13: Poincare-Lindstedt versus Numeric Solution for Unforced Duffing
Equation (ε=.05)
It is important to note that even with the increased ε value, the Poincare-
Lindstedt perturbation approximation track the numerical solution far better than the
regular perturbation approximation. The absolute error plot of the Poincare-Lindstedt
perturbation versus the numeric solution is seen in Figure: 14.
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
0 50 100 150 200
Y
X
Y Numerical
Y Lindstedt
33
Figure 14: Poincare-Lindstedt versus Numeric Solution Percent Error Plot for
Unforced Duffing Equation (ε=.05)
The Poincare-Lindstedt method is able to provide a solution approximation that has
error two orders of magnitude small than the regular perturbation method.
-0.04
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0 50 100 150 200
Erro
r
X
Absolute Error (Lindstedt to Numerical)
34
3.4 Van Der Pol Equation
3.4.1 Background
The Van Der Pol oscillator is a model of a non-conservative energy system. The
Van Der Pol equation can be used to model stick-oscillations, aero-elastic flutter and
biological oscillatory phenomena [Reference 2].
Re-introducing the Van Der Pol equation [1-2-4] as seen below with “ ” as the
dependent variable and “ ” as the independent variable:
[1-2-4]
The initial conditions used to solve this problem are as follows:
[3-4-1]
And
[3-4-2]
3.4.2 Regular Perturbation Approximation
Leading Order Solution:
Setting reduces equation [1-2-4] to:
[3-4-3]
This is the same equation as equation [3-3-3] in the unforced Duffing equation
section, and the boundary conditions in equations [3-4-1] and [3-4-2] are the same as [3-
3-1] and [3-3-2]. Therefore the development of the leading order solution for [3-4-3] is
identical to that of [3-3-3]. Refer to section 3-3 for more information.
The leading order solution is determined to be:
[3-4-4]
1st Order Solution:
Assuming δ(x) is some correction factor, the second solution approximation is as seen
below:
35
[3-4-5]
The first and second derivatives of equation [3-4-5] with respect to are the
same as equations [3-3-13] and [3-3-14] in the Duffing equation section. The values of
and
are also determined identically as seen in the Duffing equation section
equations [3-3-15] and [3-3-16].
Substituting equation [3-3-14] and [3-3-12] into equation [1-2-4] and simplifying yields:
[3-4-6]
Expanding equation [3-4-6] and eliminating the HOTs terms results in the following the
remaining terms rewritten as
[3-4-7]
Letting:
[3-4-8]
Substitution of equations [3-4-8] and [3-3-21] into equation [3-4-7] yields:
[3-4-9]
Performing the same type of trigonometric expansion as performed with equation [3-3-
19] yields:
[3-4-10]
Solving for as a traditional ordinary differential equation through superposition:
[3-4-11]
Noting that general solution takes the same form as equation [3-4-3], yields:
[3-4-12]
Guessing the particular solution:
[3-4-13]
The second derivatives of equation [3-4-13] with respect to are then:
36
[3-4-14]
Substitution of equations [3-4-13] and [3-4-14] into equation [3-4-10] and solving for
coefficients , , and yield:
[3-4-15]
[3-4-16]
[3-4-17]
Combining equations [3-4-11], [3-4-12], [3-4-13], [3-4-15], [3-4-16], and [3-4-17] and
simplifying with equation [3-4-8] yields:
[3-4-18]
Taking the derivative of equation [3-4-18] with respect to yields:
[3-4-19]
Using the boundary conditions for equations [3-3-15] and [3-3-16] in equations [3-4-18]
and [3-4-19] and solving for and yields:
[3-4-20]
And
[3-4-21]
Combining equations [3-4-5], [3-4-18], [3-4-20], and [3-4-21] yields the 1st order
perturbation approximation is:
[3-4-22]
37
3.4.3 Poincare-Lindstedt Method
As seen with the Duffing equation, the development of the regular perturbation
approximation for the Van Der Pol equation results the secular term, (
),
appearing. The Poincare-Lindstedt method was utilized in attempt to develop a
perturbation approximation for the Van Der Pol equation without the hindrance of
secular terms.
Guessing the same shift used during the Poincare-Lindstedt section of the Duffing
equation as seen in equation [3-3-40], and carrying out identical analysis of the leading
order solution using equation [1-2-4] in lieu of [1-2-3] allows the development of the
same leading order solution as equation [3-3-46] rewritten as:
[3-3-46]
The first derivative of equation [3-3-46] with respect to is:
[3-4-23]
The second derivative of equation [3-3-46] with respect to is identical as seen in
equation [3-3-47]:
[3-3-47]
Substitution of equations [3-3-42], [3-3-46], [3-3-47], and [3-4-23] into equation [1-2-4]
yields:
[3-4-24]
Expanding and eliminating the HOTs in equation [3-4-24] in the same manner as
performed in section 3.3.2 and simplification yields:
[3-4-25]
Expansion of as performed in section 3.3.2 and rearrangement yields:
38
[3-4-26]
Unlike the Duffing equation from section 3-3-3, there is no value for in which
prevention of the formation of the secular terms can be obtained. The Poincare-Lindstedt
method approximation is therefore unable to alleviate the unwanted effects of a secular
term.
3.4.4 Multiple Scales Method
Since shifting the frequency of the solution through the use of the Poincare-
Lindstedt method has failed to yield a perturbation approximation for the Van Der Pol
equation, the next attempt to eliminate the unwanted effects of secular terms by utilizing
the Multiple Scales method. The Multiple Scales method introduces a new variable Ψ,
that forms the following relation to ε and :
[3-4-27]
Therefore, when becomes large in relative magnitude, the magnitude of becomes
normal sized.
Leading Order Solution:
The first derivative of function with respect to is:
[3-4-28]
Substitution of equation [3-4-27] into [3-4-28] yields:
[3-4-29]
The second derivative of function with respect to with substitution of equation [3-4-
27] is:
[3-4-30]
Substitution of equations [3-4-29] and [3-4-30] into equation [1-2-4] yields:
[3-4-31]
39
Simplification of equation [3-4-31] through the elimination of 2nd
and higher order terms
in ε:
[3-4-32]
Setting would results in the leading order problem reminisnt of the solution seen
in the ordinary differential equation in section 3-4-2, however the coefficients are now
unknown functions of due to the partial derivatives. Therefore the adjusted leading
order solution becomes:
[3-4-33]
Rewriting equation [3-4-34] yields:
[3-4-34]
The first derivative of equation [3-4-34] is:
[3-4-35]
Using the boundary condition seen in equation [3-4-1] in conjunction with equation [3-
4-34] and the boundary condition seen in equation [3-4-2] with conjunction with
equation [3-4-35] yields:
[3-4-36]
And
[3-4-37]
It should be noted there is a degree of non-uniqueness associated with equations [3-4-34]
and [3-4-35]. Equations [3-4-36] and [3-4-37] are assumed to satisfy the solution. These
values are to be carried through the remainder of the calculation. If the calculation was to
fail, the assumed values of [3-4-36] and [3-4-37] need to be re-determined.
1st Order Solution:
Assuming δ(x) is some correction factor, the second solution approximation is as seen
below:
[3-4-38]
The first derivative of equation [3-4-38] with respect to is:
40
[3-4-39]
The second derivative of equation [3-4-38] with respect to is:
[3-4-40]
The derivative of equation [3-4-38] with respect to once and once is:
[3-4-41]
Substitution of equations [3-4-38], [3-4-39], and [3-4-40] into equation [3-4-32] yields:
( , )2*
[3-4-42]
Expansion, simplification, and elimination of HOTS in equation [3-4-42] yields:
[3-4-43]
Using equation [3-4-43] for and
yields:
[3-4-44]
And
41
[3-4-45]
Noting that both equations [3-4-37] and [3-4-45] are equal to zero. is determined
to be a constant 0.
Simplifying equation [3-4-44] yields:
[3-4-46]
Separation of variables of equation [3-4-46] results in:
[3-4-47]
Using practical fraction decomposition the left side of equation [3-4-47] and setting it
equal to the right side, then integrating once results in:
[3-4-48]
Where is a constant of integration. Using the following log properties:
[3-4-49]
[3-4-50]
And
[3-4-51]
Equation [3-4-48] reduces to:
[3-4-52]
Solving equation [3-4-51] for yields:
[3-4-53]
Substituting equations and [3-4-27] and [3-4-53] into equation [3-4-35] and the
observation that is determined to be a constant yields the following:
[3-4-54]
Using the boundary condition in equation [3-4-1] and equation [3-4-54], can be
determined to be:
42
[3-4-55]
Substitution of equations [3-4-27], [3-4-55] into [3-4-54] yields:
[3-4-56]
3.4.5 Numerical Solution
As before, the numerical solution was obtained utilizing MAPLE’s built in
Fehlberg fourth-fifth order Runge-Kutta method with degree four interpolant. The
MAPLE file used to perform the numerical analysis can be seen attached in Appendix
A.2.
3.4.6 Perturbation Approximation Compared to Analytical Solution
Case 1: ε = .01
Letting ε = .01 equations [3-4-22], [3-4-56] and [3-3-53] as well as the numerical
solution developed in section 3.4.5 was used in order to produce Table 6 in Appendix
A.5
The regular perturbation approximation seen in Table 6 is plotted together with the
numerical solution that was obtained with MAPLE in Figure: 15 below.
43
Figure 15: Regular Perturbation versus Numeric Solution for Van Der Pol
Equation (ε=.01)
The absolute error plot of the regular perturbation versus the numerical solution
is seen in Figure: 16.
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0 50 100 150 200
Y
X
Y Numerical
Y Perturbation
44
Figure 16: Regular Perturbation versus Numeric Solution Absolute Error Plot for
Van Der Pol Equation (ε=.01)
Once again as seen in the Duffing equation section, the regular perturbation
approximation’s absolute error increases as becomes large due to the secular term in
the regular perturbation approximation.
The Multiple Scales perturbation approximation seen in Table 6 is plotted
together with the numerical solution that was obtained with MAPLE in Figure: 17.
-0.05
-0.04
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0 50 100 150 200 Err
or
X
Absolute Error (Perturbation Numerical)
45
Figure 17: Multiple Scales versus Numeric Solution for Van Der Pol Equation
(ε=.01)
It is important to note that as increases, the Multiple Scales perturbation
approximation tracks the numerical solution far better than the regular perturbation
approximation. The absolute error plot of the Multiple Scales perturbation versus the
numeric solution is seen in Figure: 18.
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0 50 100 150 200
Y
X
Y Numerical
Y Multiple Scales
46
Figure 18: Multiple Scales versus Numeric Solution Absolute Error Plot for Van
Der Pol Equation (ε=.01)
The Multiple Scale method is able to provide a solution approximation that has
error two orders of magnitude small than the regular perturbation method.
Case 2: ε = .05
Letting ε = .05 equations [3-4-22], [3-3-56] and [3-3-53] as well as the numerical
solution developed in section 3.4.5 was used in order to produce Table 7 in Appendix
A.5.
-0.005
-0.004
-0.003
-0.002
-0.001
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0 50 100 150 200 Err
or
X
Absolute Error (Multiple Scales to Numerical)
47
The regular perturbation approximation seen in Table 7 is plotted together with
the numerical solution that was obtained with MAPLE in Figure: 19.
Figure 19: Perturbation versus Numeric Solution for Van Der Pol Equation (ε=.05)
Since ε has increased in size, the secular term found in the regular perturbation
approximation now dominates the solution faster than seen in Case 1. The absolute error
plot of the regular perturbation versus the numerical solution is seen in Figure: 20.
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 50 100 150 200
Y
X
Y Numerical
Y Perturbation
48
Figure 20: Perturbation versus Numeric Solution Absolute Error Plot for Van Der
Pol Equation (ε=.05)
The rapid error increase in the regular perturbation approximation is a result of
the secular term in equation identified in [3-4-22]. Since ε is now larger, the secular term
can influence the perturbation approximation faster. This causes a higher order of error
magnitude to appear in the solution at the same values of . The range of in both Cases
1 and 2 are identical.
The Multiple Scale perturbation approximation seen in Table 7 is plotted together
with the numerical solution that was obtained with MAPLE in Figure: 21.
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 50 100 150 200 Err
or
X
Absolute Error (Perturbation Numerical)
49
Figure 21: Multiple Scales versus Numeric Solution for Van Der Pol Equation
(ε=.05)
It is important to note that especially with the increased ε value, the Multiple
Scale perturbation approximation tracks the numerical solution far better than the regular
perturbation approximation. The absolute error plot of the Poincare-Lindstedt
perturbation versus the numeric solution is seen in Figure: 22.
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 50 100 150 200
Y
X
Y Numerical
Y Multiple Scales
50
Figure 22: Figure 23: Multiple Scales versus Numeric Solution Absolute Error Plot
for Van Der Pol Equation (ε=.05)
The Multiple Scales method is able to provide a solution approximation that has
error two orders of magnitude small than the regular perturbation method.
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0 50 100 150 200 Err
or
X
Absolute Error (Multiple Scales to Numerical)
51
4. Conclusion
The intent of the work reported in this paper was to demonstrate and convey the
idea of using perturbation methods to solve some selected engineering and mathematical
problems.
This paper first explained the theory of finding approximate solutions through the
use of perturbation methods through a simple algebraic example. Error of first, second,
and third order perturbation corrections were compared. The sensitivity of perturbation
approximations accuracy as ε increases was compared to the exact solution determined
through the use of the quadratic equation.
Next, a brief introduction into the process of non-dimensionalizing an ordinary
linear differential equation was discussed. The differential equation selected can be used
to model the physics of a typical mass spring dampener problem. This non-
dimensionalization allowed for the formation of ε, and was shown that non-
dimensionalization of the problem allowed the development of a single equation to
represent multiple physical parameter variations.
A similar linear second order ordinary differential equation was solved using
perturbation methods. Due to the location of ε in the differential equation, the equation
resulted in a specific subset known as a boundary layer problem. In order to enforce
both boundary conditions, the perturbation approximation developed an inner and outer
solution. Then, through the use of matching, a single composite solution was
determined. The perturbation approximation was compared to the exact analytical
solution obtained through normal application of differential equation theory.
A regular perturbation approximation was then developed for the unforced
Duffing equation. The regular perturbation approximation resulted in a secular term
being present. In order to develop a approximation without a secular term, the Poincare-
Lindstedt method was used to shift the frequency of the perturbation approximation.
Both of these approximations were compared to a numerical solution which was
obtained through the use of MAPLE for two different values of ε. While both the regular
perturbation approximation and the Poincare-Lindstedt methods tracked the numerical
solution with low error at low values of , the Poincare-Lindstedt method had
significantly lower error as values of increased.
52
Finally, a regular perturbation approximation was then developed for the Van
Der Pol equation. The regular perturbation approximation resulted in a secular term
being present. In order to develop a approximation without a secular term, the Poincare-
Lindstedt method was attempted. The Poincare-Lindstedt was unable to eliminate all the
terms that would result in secular term being present in a perturbation approximation.
The Multiple Scales method was then used to introduce a new variable which is
dependent on ε and . This new variable allowed the successful elimination of secular
terms from appearing in a perturbation approximation. Both the regular perturbation
approximation and the Multiple Scales method approximations were compared to a
numerical solution which was obtained through the use of MAPLE for two different
values of ε. While both the regular perturbation approximation and the Multiple Scales
methods tracked the numerical solution with low error at low values of , the Multiple
Scales method had significantly lower error as values of increased.
53
References
[1] “Introduction to Perturbation Methods”. M.H Holmes; Springer; 1995
[2] “Lecture Notes on Nonlinear Vibrations”; Richard Rand; 2005
[3] “Introduction to Singular Perturbation Methods Nonlinear Oscillations”; A; Aceves,
N.Ercolani, C.Jones, J. Lega & J. Moloney; 1994
Additional Reading:
[4] “Transport Phenomenan”; Second Edition; Bird, Stewart and Lightfoot; John
Wiley& Sons; 2007
[5] “Perturbation Methods”; Ali Nayfeh; John Wiley& Sons; 1973
[6] “Perturbation Theory & Stability Analysis” University of Twente; T. Weinhart, A
Singh, A.R. Thornton; May 17, 2010
[7] “Some Asymptotic Methods for Strongly Nonlinear Equations”; Ji-Huan He; 2006
54
A. Appendices
55
A.1 Unforced Duffing Equation Numeric MAPLE Code
56
57
58
A.2 Van Der Pol Equation Numeric MAPLE Code
59
60
61
A.3 Numerical Value Tables for the Ordinary Differential Equation
Table 3: Perturbation and Exact Solutions to the Ordinary Differential Equation
X Y Analytical Y Composite %Error
0 0 0 -
0.011519 2.424557348 2.415660385 -0.36695
0.023038 2.641622008 2.629258016 -0.46805
0.034907 2.635230466 2.622507364 -0.48281
0.069813 2.546917667 2.534980398 -0.46869
0.10472 2.4591161 2.448021737 -0.45115
0.139626 2.374339022 2.364043877 -0.4336
0.174533 2.292484598 2.282946823 -0.41605
0.20944 2.213452074 2.204631754 -0.39849
0.244346 2.137144166 2.129003234 -0.38093
0.279253 2.063466944 2.055969103 -0.36336
0.314159 1.992329715 1.985440363 -0.34579
0.349066 1.923644915 1.917331067 -0.32822
0.383972 1.857327997 1.851558218 -0.31065
0.418879 1.79329733 1.788041666 -0.29307
0.453786 1.731474094 1.726704009 -0.27549
0.488692 1.671782192 1.667470503 -0.25791
0.523599 1.614148144 1.610268966 -0.24032
0.558505 1.558501008 1.555029691 -0.22273
0.593412 1.504772286 1.501685365 -0.20514
0.628319 1.452895841 1.450170984 -0.18755
0.663225 1.402807816 1.400423771 -0.16995
0.698132 1.354446556 1.352383105 -0.15235
0.733038 1.307752533 1.305990444 -0.13474
0.767945 1.262668268 1.261189255 -0.11713
0.802851 1.219138265 1.217924943 -0.09952
0.837758 1.177108943 1.176144786 -0.08191
0.872665 1.136528565 1.135797871 -0.06429
0.907571 1.09734718 1.096835032 -0.04667
0.942478 1.059516559 1.059208789 -0.02905
0.977384 1.022990133 1.022873291 -0.01142
1.012291 0.987722942 0.987784259 0.006208
1.047198 0.953671574 0.953898935 0.023841
1.082104 0.920794114 0.921176026 0.041476
1.117011 0.889050091 0.889575656 0.059115
1.151917 0.858400431 0.859059317 0.076757
1.186824 0.828807407 0.829589821 0.094402
62
A.4 Numerical Value Tables for the Duffing Equation
Table 4: Perturbation and Numerical Values Determined for the Unforced Duffing
Equation (ε=.01)
X Y Perturbation Y Lindstedt Y Numerical Absolute Error (Lindstedt vs Numerical)
Absolute Error (Perturbation vs Numerical)
0 1 1 1 0 0
3.926991 -0.696251833 -0.69661748 -0.696195777 0.000421703 5.60552E-05
7.853982 -0.029452431 -0.029448173 -0.029347606 0.000100567 0.000104825
11.78097 0.73790386 0.737645704 0.737164133 -0.000481572 -0.000739727
15.70796 -1 -0.99826561 -0.998270494 -4.88334E-06 0.001729506
19.63495 0.654599805 0.653172843 0.652830896 -0.000341947 -0.001768909
23.56194 0.088357293 0.088242371 0.087942462 -0.000299909 -0.000414832
27.48894 -0.779555888 -0.776115199 -0.775592601 0.000522598 0.003963287
31.41593 1 0.993068457 0.993084824 1.63671E-05 -0.006915176
35.34292 -0.612947777 -0.607462493 -0.607218292 0.000244201 0.005729485
39.26991 -0.147262156 -0.146730474 -0.146236211 0.000494263 0.001025944
43.1969 0.821207915 0.81189252 0.811346481 -0.000546039 -0.009861434
47.12389 -1 -0.984426568 -0.984461257 -3.46884E-05 0.015538743
51.05088 0.57129575 0.55964499 0.559516144 -0.000128846 -0.011779606
54.97787 0.206167018 0.204709603 0.204028918 -0.000680684 -0.002138099
58.90486 -0.862859943 -0.844853565 -0.84430102 0.000552546 0.018558923
62.83185 1 0.97236992 0.972430178 6.02572E-05 -0.027569822
66.75884 -0.529643722 -0.509886202 -0.509889556 -3.35462E-06 0.019754166
70.68583 -0.26507188 -0.261978638 -0.261122264 0.000856375 0.003949616
74.61283 0.90451197 0.874884 0.874340809 -0.00054319 -0.030171161
78.53982 -1 -0.956940336 -0.957033969 -9.36335E-05 0.042966031
82.46681 0.487991695 0.458358731 0.458510253 0.000151522 -0.029481442
86.3938 0.323976742 0.318338928 0.317320245 -0.001018683 -0.006656497
90.32079 -0.946163998 -0.901879654 -0.901360556 0.000519098 0.044803441
94.24778 1 0.938191336 0.938326825 0.000135489 -0.061673175
98.17477 -0.446339667 -0.405241314 -0.405555365 -0.000314051 0.040784302
102.1018 -0.382881605 -0.37359497 -0.372429655 0.001165315 0.01045195
106.0288 0.987816025 0.925746887 0.925265415 -0.000481472 -0.06255061
109.9557 -1 -0.916187957 -0.916374533 -0.000186576 0.083625467
113.8827 0.40468764 0.350718205 0.351207602 0.000489397 -0.053480038
117.8097 0.441786467 0.427555093 0.42626083 -0.001294264 -0.015525637
121.7367 -1.029468053 -0.946402908 -0.945971377 0.000431531 0.083496676
125.6637 1 0.891006524 0.891254275 0.000247751 -0.108745725
63
129.5907 -0.363035612 -0.294978531 -0.29565392 -0.000675389 0.067381692
133.5177 -0.500691329 -0.480032122 -0.478628474 0.001403648 0.022062855
137.4447 1.07112008 0.963776066 0.963405484 -0.000370582 -0.107714597
141.3717 -1 -0.862734386 -0.863054266 -0.00031988 0.136945734
145.2987 0.321383585 0.238215642 0.239085462 0.000869821 -0.082298122
149.2257 0.559596191 0.530844026 0.529351867 -0.001492159 -0.030244325
153.1526 -1.112772108 -0.977806097 -0.977506394 0.000299703 0.135265714
157.0796 1 0.831469612 0.831873314 0.000403702 -0.168126686
161.0066 -0.279731557 -0.180626435 -0.181696578 -0.001070143 0.098034979
164.9336 -0.618501054 -0.579814548 -0.57825575 0.001558798 0.040245303
168.8606 1.154424136 0.988444334 0.988224316 -0.000220018 -0.16619982
172.7876 -1 -0.797320654 -0.797820567 -0.000499914 0.202179433
176.7146 0.23807953 0.122410675 0.123684165 0.00127349 -0.114395364
180.6416 0.677405916 0.626773822 0.625170868 -0.001602954 -0.052235048
184.5686 -1.196076163 -0.995653875 -0.995521381 0.000132495 0.200554782
188.4956 1 0.760405966 0.761015097 0.000609131 -0.238984903
192.4226 -0.196427502 -0.0637703 -0.065247244 -0.001476945 0.131180258
196.3495 -0.736310778 -0.671558955 -0.669934738 0.001624217 0.06637604
64
Table 5: Perturbation and Numerical Values Determined for the Unforced Duffing
Equation (ε=.05)
X Y Perturbation Y Lindstedt Y Numerical Absolute Error (Lindstedt vs Numerical)
Absolute Error (Perturbation vs
Numerical)
0 1 1 1 0 0
3.926991 -0.652832038 -0.653172843 -0.651510889 0.001661954 0.001321149
7.853982 -0.147262156 -0.146730474 -0.144319338 0.002411136 0.002942818
11.78097 0.861092176 0.844853565 0.842120293 -0.002733273 -0.018971883
15.70796 -1 -0.956940336 -0.957372181 -0.000431845 0.042627819
19.63495 0.4445719 0.405241314 0.406783672 0.001542358 -0.037788228
23.56194 0.441786467 0.427555093 0.421193484 -0.00636161 -0.020592983
27.48894 -1.069352314 -0.963776066 -0.961865209 0.001910857 0.107487105
31.41593 1 0.831469612 0.833423339 0.001953726 -0.166576661
35.34292 -0.236311763 -0.122410675 -0.128666376 -0.006255701 0.107645387
39.26991 -0.736310778 -0.671558955 -0.663478817 0.008080138 0.072831961
43.1969 1.277612451 0.999698819 0.999876475 0.000177657 -0.277735976
47.12389 -1 -0.634393284 -0.639385186 -0.004991902 0.360614814
51.05088 0.028051625 -0.170961889 -0.159940417 0.011021472 -0.187992042
54.97787 1.030835089 0.85772861 0.850611969 -0.007116641 -0.180223121
58.90486 -1.485872589 -0.949528181 -0.952639425 -0.003111244 0.533233164
62.83185 1 0.382683432 0.392271396 0.009587963 -0.607728604
66.75884 0.180208513 0.44961133 0.435506458 -0.014104872 0.255297945
70.68583 -1.325359401 -0.970031253 -0.966117774 0.003913479 0.359241626
74.61283 1.694132727 0.817584813 0.824514735 0.006929922 -0.869617992
78.53982 -1 -0.09801714 -0.112975562 -0.014958422 0.887024438
82.46681 -0.388468651 -0.689540545 -0.675287168 0.014253376 -0.286818518
86.3938 1.619883712 0.998795456 0.999497083 0.000701627 -0.620386629
90.32079 -1.902392864 -0.615231591 -0.627095178 -0.011863587 1.275297686
94.24778 1 -0.195090322 -0.175529348 0.019560974 -1.175529348
98.17477 0.596728788 0.870086991 0.858892521 -0.01119447 0.262163732
102.1018 -1.914408023 -0.941544065 -0.947661839 -0.006117774 0.966746184
106.0288 2.110653002 0.359895037 0.377656432 0.017761395 -1.73299657
109.9557 -1 0.471396737 0.449718518 -0.021678219 1.449718518
113.8827 -0.804988926 -0.97570213 -0.970125687 0.005576443 -0.165136761
117.8097 2.208932335 0.803207531 0.815394368 0.012186837 -1.393537966
121.7367 -2.31891314 -0.073564564 -0.097250226 -0.023685663 2.221662914
125.6637 1 -0.707106781 -0.686932352 0.020174429 -1.686932352
129.5907 1.013249064 0.997290457 0.998861592 0.001571135 -0.014387472
65
133.5177 -2.503456646 -0.595699304 -0.61464376 -0.018944456 1.888812886
137.4447 2.527173278 -0.21910124 -0.191082216 0.028019024 -2.718255494
141.3717 -1 0.881921264 0.866959421 -0.014961843 1.866959421
145.2987 -1.221509201 -0.932992799 -0.942440494 -0.009447695 0.279068707
149.2257 2.797980957 0.336889853 0.362942244 0.026052391 -2.435038713
153.1526 -2.735433415 0.492898192 0.463825972 -0.02907222 3.199259387
157.0796 1 -0.98078528 -0.973887501 0.00689778 -1.973887501
161.0066 1.429769339 0.788346428 0.806064396 0.017717969 -0.623704943
164.9336 -3.092505268 -0.049067674 -0.081494299 -0.032426624 3.01101097
168.8606 2.943693553 -0.724247083 -0.698411033 0.02583605 -3.642104586
172.7876 -1 0.995184727 0.997969843 0.002785117 1.997969843
176.7146 -1.638029477 -0.575808191 -0.602033989 -0.026225797 1.035995488
180.6416 3.38702958 -0.24298018 -0.206595202 0.036384977 -3.593624782
184.5686 -3.151953691 0.893224301 0.874810338 -0.018413963 4.026764029
188.4956 1 -0.923879533 -0.936976536 -0.013097004 -1.936976536
192.4226 1.846289615 0.31368174 0.348132316 0.034450576 -1.498157298
196.3495 -3.681553891 0.514102744 0.477825188 -0.036277556 4.159379079
66
A.5 Numerical Value Tables for the Van Der Pol Equation
Table 6: Perturbation and Numerical Values Determined for the Van Der Pol
Equation (ε=.01)
Y Perturbation Y Multiple
Scales Y Numerical
Absolute Error (Multiple Scales vs
Numerical)
Absolute Error (Perturbation vs
Numerical)
1 1 1 0 0
-0.715310079 -0.717544628 -0.715308572 0.002236056 1.50724E-06
-0.0025 8.54548E-15 -0.002534072 -0.002534072 -3.40716E-05
0.740555511 0.738556114 0.740870018 0.002313904 0.000314507
-1.058904862 -1.059416551 -1.059416984 -4.32976E-07 -0.000512122
0.756962107 0.759718006 0.757347418 -0.002370588 0.000385311
0.0025 -2.61588E-14 0.002605122 0.002605122 0.000105122
-0.782207538 -0.780991622 -0.783449645 -0.002458023 -0.001242107
1.117809725 1.119573047 1.119573761 7.14061E-07 0.001764037
-0.798614134 -0.802336314 -0.799817226 0.002519089 -0.001203091
-0.0025 4.87368E-14 -0.002680175 -0.002680175 -0.000180175
0.823859566 0.823709742 0.826326049 0.002616307 0.002466483
-1.176714587 -1.180010766 -1.180011592 -8.26118E-07 -0.003297005
0.840266162 0.845068189 0.842386545 -0.002681644 0.002120383
0.0025 -7.35352E-14 0.002759142 0.002759142 0.000259142
-0.865511593 -0.866366918 -0.869155381 -0.002788463 -0.003643788
1.235619449 1.240236618 1.240237356 7.37134E-07 0.004617907
-0.88191819 -0.887560558 -0.884703033 0.002857525 -0.002784844
-0.0025 9.14918E-14 -0.0028415 -0.0028415 -0.0003415
0.907163621 0.908603521 0.911576962 0.002973441 0.004413341
-1.294524311 -1.299739054 -1.299739495 -4.41485E-07 -0.005215184
0.923570217 0.929450432 0.926405093 -0.003045339 0.002834876
0.0025 -1.10718E-13 0.002926298 0.002926298 0.000426298
-0.948815648 -0.950056575 -0.953225986 -0.003169411 -0.004410338
1.353429174 1.358006599 1.358006535 -6.38997E-08 0.004577362
-0.965222245 -0.970378338 -0.967135468 0.003242871 -0.001913223
-0.0025 1.50835E-13 -0.003012053 -0.003012053 -0.000512053
0.990467676 0.990373647 0.99374757 0.003373923 0.003279894
-1.412334036 -1.41454768 -1.414546908 7.72049E-07 -0.002212873
1.006874272 1.010002383 1.006555088 -0.003447296 -0.000319184
0.0025 -1.73126E-13 0.0030967 0.0030967 0.0005967
-1.032119703 -1.029226772 -1.032810299 -0.003583527 -0.000690595
1.471238898 1.468910053 1.468908387 -1.66624E-06 -0.002330511
67
-1.0485263 -1.048011733 -1.044356655 0.003655078 0.004169645
-0.0025 2.17602E-13 -0.003178281 -0.003178281 -0.000678281
1.073771731 1.066325186 1.070119773 0.003794588 -0.003651958
-1.53014376 -1.520698125 -1.520695408 2.71691E-06 0.009448352
1.090178327 1.084138308 1.080275913 -0.003862395 -0.009902415
0.0025 -2.64316E-13 0.003254214 0.003254214 0.000754214
-1.115423758 -1.101425731 -1.105428917 -0.004003186 0.009994841
1.589048623 1.569586644 1.569582752 -3.89276E-06 -0.019465871
-1.131830355 -1.118165687 -1.114100668 0.004065018 0.017729686
-0.0025 3.13001E-13 -0.003321966 -0.003321966 -0.000821966
1.157075786 1.134340085 1.138545217 0.004205132 -0.018530569
-1.647953485 -1.615329667 -1.615324513 5.15366E-06 0.032628972
1.173482382 1.149934542 1.145675353 -0.004259188 -0.027807029
0.0025 -3.16855E-13 0.003378976 0.003378976 0.000878976
-1.198727814 -1.164938344 -1.169334777 -0.004396433 0.029393037
1.706858347 1.657764312 1.657757855 -6.45626E-06 -0.049100492
-1.21513441 -1.179344367 -1.174903203 0.004441164 0.040231207
-0.0025 3.67492E-13 -0.003423445 -0.003423445 -0.000923445
68
Table 7: Perturbation and Numerical Values Determined for the Van Der Pol
Equation (ε=.05)
X Y Perturbation Y Multiple
Scales Y Numerical
Absolute Error (Multiple Scales vs
Numerical)
Absolute Error (Perturbation vs
Numerical)
0 1 1 1 0 0
3.926991 -0.748123272 -0.759718006 -0.747966033 0.011751972 0.000157239
7.853982 -0.0125 9.54311E-15 -0.013403983 -0.013403983 -0.000903983
11.78097 0.874350428 0.866366918 0.880398134 0.014031216 0.006047706
15.70796 -1.294524311 -1.299739054 -1.299528534 0.00021052 -0.005004223
19.63495 0.95638341 0.970378338 0.954246161 -0.016132177 -0.002137249
23.56194 0.0125 -3.46252E-14 0.015498069 0.015498069 0.002998069
27.48894 -1.082610566 -1.066325186 -1.085391266 -0.01906608 -0.0027807
31.41593 1.589048623 1.569586644 1.56907201 -0.000514635 -0.019976613
35.34292 -1.164643548 -1.149934542 -1.128744127 0.021190415 0.03589942
39.26991 -0.0125 7.11143E-14 -0.017147211 -0.017147211 -0.004647211
43.1969 1.290870703 1.218955321 1.242782828 0.023827506 -0.048087875
47.12389 -1.883572934 -1.764777172 -1.764004837 0.000772334 0.119568096
51.05088 1.372903685 1.273265719 1.24846984 -0.024795879 -0.124433846
54.97787 0.0125 -1.11311E-13 0.017093211 0.017093211 0.004593211
58.90486 -1.499130841 -1.314329515 -1.340725129 -0.026395613 0.158405712
62.83185 2.178097245 1.881740046 1.880847285 -0.00089276 -0.29724996
66.75884 -1.581163823 -1.344415243 -1.318537991 0.025877251 0.262625832
70.68583 -0.0125 1.38149E-13 -0.015052885 -0.015052885 -0.002552885
74.61283 1.707390979 1.365939003 1.39240169 0.026462687 -0.314989289
78.53982 -2.472621556 -1.943389019 -1.942499258 0.000889761 0.530122298
82.46681 1.789423961 1.381071207 1.35620113 -0.024870076 -0.43322283
86.3938 0.0125 -1.63382E-13 0.011594317 0.011594317 -0.000905683
90.32079 -1.915651117 -1.391578068 -1.416362673 -0.024784605 0.499288444
94.24778 2.767145868 1.973582897 1.972767831 -0.000815066 -0.794378037
98.17477 -1.997684099 -1.398809787 -1.376194256 0.022615531 0.621489843
102.1018 -0.0125 2.15621E-13 -0.007354759 -0.007354759 0.005145241
106.0288 2.123911254 1.403757128 1.425900721 0.022143593 -0.698010534
109.9557 -3.061670179 -1.987824615 -1.987115154 0.000709461 1.074555025
113.8827 2.205944236 1.407127574 1.387399208 -0.019728366 -0.818545028
117.8097 0.0125 -2.39125E-13 0.002739235 0.002739235 -0.009760765
121.7367 -2.332171392 -1.409417186 -1.428444397 -0.019027211 0.903726995
125.6637 3.35619449 1.994421102 1.993825342 -0.00059576 -1.362369148
129.5907 -2.414204374 -1.410969541 -1.394422714 0.016546827 1.01978166
69
133.5177 -0.0125 2.90529E-13 0.002044676 0.002044676 0.014544676
137.4447 2.54043153 1.412020647 1.427706849 0.015686202 -1.112724681
141.3717 -3.650718801 -1.997450568 -1.996965526 0.000485042 1.653753275
145.2987 2.622464512 1.412731717 1.399495979 -0.013235738 -1.222968532
149.2257 0.0125 -3.41747E-13 -0.006901328 -0.006901328 -0.019401328
153.1526 -2.748691667 -1.413212462 -1.425451914 -0.012239452 1.323239753
157.0796 3.945243113 1.998836407 1.998454034 -0.000382373 -1.946789079
161.0066 -2.830724649 -1.413537354 -1.403666262 0.009871092 1.427058387
164.9336 -0.0125 3.9285E-13 0.011788486 0.011788486 0.024288486
168.8606 2.956951805 1.413756859 1.422497587 0.008740728 -1.534454218
172.7876 -4.239767424 -1.999469221 -1.999179232 0.000289989 2.240588192
176.7146 3.038984787 1.413905133 1.407417697 -0.006487436 -1.63156709
180.6416 0.0125 -3.87055E-13 -0.016688209 -0.016688209 -0.029188209
184.5686 -3.165211943 -1.414005279 -1.419219222 -0.005213943 1.745992721
188.4956 4.534291735 1.999757945 1.999549071 -0.000208874 -2.534742664
192.4226 -3.247244925 -1.414072913 -1.410973045 0.003099868 1.83627188
196.3495 -0.0125 4.38051E-13 0.021592419 0.021592419 0.034092419