Periodic solution to nonlinear oscillators without artificial noises by the homotopy perturbation method

Abstract

This paper elucidates a wrong trend in solving nonlinear oscillators. The homotopy perturbation method leads to a period solution to a nonlinear oscillator with high nonlinearity, while the Parker–Sochacki method results in a chaotic one and it is invalid for solving nonlinear oscillators.

Keywords

Nonlinear oscillator periodic solution chaotic solution noise

Introduction

Nonlinear vibrations arise everywhere in engineering, and it is of great importance to accurately predict its frequency. There are many analytical methods for this purpose, for example, the Parker–Sochacki method,^1,2 the homotopy perturbation method,^3–7 the variational iteration method,^8–13 the variational principle^14–17 and the fixed point theory,^18–21 just to name a few, among which the homotopy perturbation method is the most powerful tool to nonlinear oscillators, while the Parker–Sochacki method always ends in a wrong result. In this paper, we will study a nonlinear oscillator with high nonlinearity and point out some misunderstandings in the analytical approach to nonlinear oscillators.

Multiple frequencies and their lowest common multiple

In order to approximately find the frequency or period of a nonlinear oscillator, we will use multiple frequencies to approach to the exact solution. To elucidate this, we consider a general oscillator in the form

y^{″} (t) + y (t) + N (y (t)) = 0, y (0) = A, y^{'} (0) = 0

(1)

where N is a nonlinear operator and A is the amplitude.

The general approach to approximate identification of its frequency is to choose the following trial solution

y (t) = A \cos (ω t)

(2)

where

ω

is the frequency to be determined.

In order to improve the accuracy, a multiple frequency assumption should be considered, that is we assume the solution can be expressed in the form

y (t) = \sum_{i = 0}^{N} a_{i} \cos ((2 i + 1) ω t)

(3)

where

a_{i}

(i = 0 ∼ N) are constants to de determined late.

Recently there was a wrong trend to replace equation (3) by the following one²

y (t) = \sum_{i = 0}^{N} a_{i} \cos (ω_{i + 1} t)

where

ω_{i}

(i = 1 ∼ N − 1) are multiple frequencies.

The assumption given in equation (3) should be avoided completely in solving approximately nonlinear oscillators.

We consider the following equations

y (t) = 0.999 \cos t + 0.0001 \cos 3 t

(4)

y (t) = 0.999 \cos t + 0.0001 \cos 0.9999 t

(5)

The period of equation (4) is $2 π$ , while the period of equation (5) is the lowest common multiple of $2 π$ and $\frac{2 π}{0.9999} = 1.0001 \times 2 π$ , and its value is as large as $10001 \times 2 π$ instead of $2 π$ . This can be understood by considering two planets with periods of $2 π$ and $1.0001 \times 2 π$ , and it requires 10,001 circles to meet each other again.

Approximate period of a nonlinear oscillator by the homotopy perturbation method

Consider a nonlinear oscillator with fifth-order nonlinearity

y^{″} (t) + y (t) + ε y^{5} (t) = 0, y (0) = A, y^{'} (0) = 0

(6)

By the homotopy perturbation method, we construct a homotopy equation in the form^3–7

y^{″} (t) + 1 \cdot y (t) + ε p y^{5} (t) = 0

(7)

where

p \in [0, 1]

We assume the solution can be expressed in a power series of p

y (t) = y_{0} (t) + p y_{1} (t) + p^{2} y_{2} (t) + L

(8)

By the parameter expansion technology,^22,23 we expand the coefficient 1 of the linear term in the form

1 = ω^{2} + p ω_{1} + p^{2} ω_{2} + L

(9)

Submitting equations (8) and (9) into equation (7), we have

\begin{array}{l} {[y_{0} (t) + p y_{1} (t) + p^{2} y_{2} (t) + L]}^{″} + [ω^{2} + p ω_{1} + p^{2} ω_{2} + L] \\ \times [y_{0} (t) + p y_{1} (t) + p^{2} y_{2} (t) + L] y (t) + ε p [y_{0} (t) + p y_{1} (t) + p^{2} y_{2} (t) + L] = 0 \end{array}

(10)

Proceeding as what is required by the homotopy perturbation method,^3–7 we have

y_{0}^{″} (t) + ω^{2} y_{0} (t) = 0, y_{0} (0) = A, y_{0}^{'} (0) = 0

(11)

y_{1}^{″} (t) + ω^{2} y_{1} (t) + ω_{1} y_{0} + ε y_{0}^{5} (t) = 0, y_{1} (0) = 0, y_{1}^{'} (0) = 0

(12)

The other components of $y_{i}$ can be easily obtained and it is not necessary to write them down for simplicity. The solution of equation (11) is

y_{0} (t) = A \cos (ω t)

(13)

In view of equation (13), we obtain

y_{1}^{″} (t) + ω^{2} y_{1} (t) + ω_{1} A \cos (ω t) + ε A^{5} \cos^{5} (ω t) = 0

(14)

Using the following identity

\cos^{5} (ω t) = \frac{10}{16} \cos (ω t) + \frac{5}{16} \cos (3 ω t) + \frac{1}{16} \cos (5 ω t)

(15)

Equation (14) becomes

y_{1}^{″} (t) + ω^{2} y_{1} (t) + (ω_{1} A + \frac{10}{16} ε A^{5}) \cos (ω t) + \frac{5}{16} ε A^{5} \cos (3 ω t) + \frac{1}{16} ε A^{5} \cos (5 ω t) = 0

(16)

The periodic solution should be avoided any terms of $t \cos (ω t)$ or $t \sin (ω t)$ in $y_{1}$ , this requires

ω_{1} A + \frac{5}{8} ε A^{5} = 0

(17)

If we search for a first-order approximate solution, by setting p = 1 and $ω_{i} = 0$ (i > 1) in equation (9), we have

1 = ω^{2} + ω_{1}

(18)

From equations (17) and (18), we have the following approximate frequency

ω = \sqrt{1 + \frac{5}{8} ε A^{4}}

(19)

In order to compare with the result in Abdelrazik et al.,² we choose $ε = 0.1$ and A = 1, and the approximate period is

T_{a p p} = \frac{2 π}{\sqrt{1 + \frac{5}{8} \times 0.1 y^{4} (0)}} = 6.095585103

(20)

Its exact solution is illustrated in Figure 1, with the exact period of T = 6.0907.

Figure 1.

Exact solution of equation (1) with period of T = 6.0907.

Periodic solution versus chaotic solution

This section discusses the Parker–Sochacki method for nonlinear oscillators, which was originally proposed to solve a nonlinear differential equation in a power series.¹ This method was extended to nonlinear oscillators,² but in vain. For a nonlinear oscillator, it is of great importance to find an accurate frequency.

Abdelrazik et al.² obtained the following solution by the Parker–Sochacki method

\begin{array}{l} y (t) = 0.996332 \cos (1.03096 t) + 0.00348791 \cos (3.19861 t) \\ + 0.000179745 \cos (5.4452 t) + 1 .7071 \times 10^{- 7} \cos (9.40308 t) \end{array}

(21)

There are four primary frequencies (1.03096, 3.19861, 5.4452 and 9.40308), and their corresponding periods are

T_{1} = \frac{2 π}{1.03096} = 6.0944996

(22)

T_{2} = \frac{2 π}{3.19861} = 1.964348672

(23)

T_{3} = \frac{2 π}{5.4452} = 1.153894312

(24)

T_{4} = \frac{2 π}{9.40308} = 0.6682050251

(25)

The period of equation (21) is the least common multiple of $T_{1}$ , $T_{2}$ , $T_{3}$ , and $T_{4}$

T = n_{1} T_{1} = n_{2} T_{2} = n_{3} T_{3} = n_{4} T_{4}

(26)

where

n_{1}

n_{2}

n_{3}

, and

n_{4}

are natural numbers.

It can predict that $T ≫ T_{i}$ (i = 1∼4). For example, the least common multiple of 1 and 1.001 is 1001.

If the solution process continues by the Parker–Sochacki method, more frequencies appear in the approximate solution, and it will become chaotic, not periodic. Most frequencies become unneeded noise.

Abdelrazik et al.² gave a wrong direction to a nonlinear oscillator to have an approximate solution, or to track its trajectory. For a nonlinear oscillator, the most important property is the period–amplitude relationship or the frequency–amplitude relationship. The approximate solution can be generally expressed as

y (t) = \sum_{n = 1}^{N} A_{n} \cos (n ω t)

(27)

where

A_{n}

(n = 1∼N) are constants. When N tends to infinity, an exact solution can be obtained. Abdelrazik et al.² actually searched for an approximate solution in the form

y (t) = \sum_{n = 1}^{N} A_{n} \cos (ω_{n} t)

(28)

where

ω_{n}

(n = 1∼N) are frequencies.

Equation (28) is a chaotic solution, not a periodic one unless $ω_{n}$ is a multiple of a primary frequency ( $ω_{1}$ ).

Conclusions

For a nonlinear oscillator, the frequency–amplitude relationship is of utmost importance, and there is much literature on this study, such as the He's frequency formulation,^24–29 García’s frequency formulation,³⁰ and Suárez-Antola frequency formulation.³¹ For conservative nonlinear oscillators, there are some even simpler methods,^27,32 while the Akbari-Ganji method is a universal method for various nonlinear vibrations.³³ We conclude that the homotopy perturbation method is the most powerful tool to nonlinear oscillators, while the Parker-Sochacki method^1,2 is totally invalid for nonlinear vibration and should be completely avoided.

Footnotes

Acknowledgment

The author feels greatly grateful for the helpful comments by the reviewers and the editor, without their help, this paper cannot reach such a present level.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Parker

Sochacki

JS.

Implementing the Picard iteration. Neural

Parallel Sci Computat 1996; 4: 97–112.

Abdelrazik

Elkaranshawy

Abdelrazek

AM.

Modified Parker-Sochacki method for solving nonlinear oscillators. Mech Based Des Struct Mach 2017; 45: 239–252.

JH.

Homotopy perturbation technique. Comput Meth Appl Mech Eng 1999; 178: 257–262.

JH.

Some asymptotic methods for strongly nonlinear equations. Int J Mod Phys B 2006; 20: 1141–1199.

Liu

Adamu

Suleiman

, et al. Hybridization of homotopy perturbation method and Laplace transformation for the partial differential equations. Therm Sci 2017; 21: 1843–1846.

Adamu

Ogenyi

Parameterized homotopy perturbation method. Nonlinear Sci Lett A 2017; 8: 240–243.

El-Dib

YO.

Multiple scales homotopy perturbation method for nonlinear oscillators. SAEA 2017; 8–4: 352–364.

XH.

Variational iteration method: New development and applications. Comput Math Appl 2007; 54: 881–894.

Zhou

Pang

Chong

, et al. A variational iteration method integral transform technique for handling heat transfer problems. Therm Sci 2017; 21: S55–S61.

10.

Meng

Zhou

Wang

HQ.

Local fractional variational iteration algorithm III for the diffusion model associated with non-differentiable heat transfer. Therm Sci 2016; 20: S781–S784.

11.

Analytical approach to a generalized Hirota-Satsuma coupled Korteweg-de Vries equation by modified variational iteration method. Therm Sci 2016; 20: 885–888.

12.

Ahmad

Variational iteration method with an auxiliary parameter for solving differential equations of the fifth order. Nonlinear Sci Lett A 2018; 9: 27–35.

13.

Ahmad

Variational iteration algorithm-II with an auxiliary parameter and its optimal determination. Nonlinear Sci Lett A 2018; 9: 62–72.

14.

JH.

A remark on Samuelson’s variational principle in economics. Applied Math Lett 2018; 84: 143–147.

15.

JH.

Hamilton’s principle for dynamical elasticity. Appl Math Lett 2017; 72: 65–69.

16.

JH.

Generalized equilibrium equations for shell derived from a generalizedvariationalprinciple. Appl Math Lett 2017; 64: 94–100.

17.

JH.

Hamiltonian approach to nonlinear oscillators. Physics Lett Section A: General Atomic Solid State Phys 2010; 374: 2312–2314.

18.

Yingxin

Mingzhi

Characterizations of common fixed points of one-parameter nonexpansive semigroups. Fixed Point Theory 2015; 16: 337–342.

19.

Guo

Stability analysis of neutral stochastic delay differential equations by a generalisation of Banach's contraction principle. Int J Control 2017; 90: 1555–1560.

20.

Guo

Exponential stability analysis of traveling waves solutions for nonlinear delayed cellular neural networks. Dynam Syst Int J 2017; 32: 490–503.

21.

Guo

Globally robust stability analysis for stochastic Cohen-Grossberg neural networks with impulse control and time-varying delays. Ukr Math J 2017; 69: 1220–1233.

22.

Shou

JH.

Application of parameter-expanding method to strongly nonlinear oscillators. Int J Nonlinear Sci Num Simulat 2007; 8: 121–124.

23.

J-H.

Homotopy perturbation method for nonlinear oscillators with coordinate dependent mass. Results Phys 2018; 10: 270–271.

24.

JH.

An improved amplitude-frequency formulation for nonlinear oscillators. Int J Nonlinear Sci Num Simulat 2008; 9: 211–212.

25.

JH.

Comment on He’s frequency formulation fornonlinear oscillators. Int J Nonlinear Sci Num Simulat 2008; 29: 19–22.

26.

JH.

An approximate amplitude-frequency relationship for a nonlinear oscillator with discontinuity. Nonlinear Sci Lett A 2016; 7: 77–85.

27.

JH.

Amplitude–frequency relationship for conservative nonlinear oscillators with odd nonlinearities. Int J Appl Comput Math 2017; 3: 1557–1560.

28.

Ren

He’s frequency-amplitude formulation for nonlinear oscillators. Int J Mod Phys B 2011; 25: 2379–2382.

29.

Ren

Theoretical basis of He frequency-amplitude formulation for nonlinear oscillators. Nonlinear Sci Lett A 2018; 9: 86–90.

30.

García

An amplitude-period formula for a second order nonlinear oscillator. Nonlinear Sci Lett A 2017; 8: 340–347.

31.

Suárez Antola

Remarks on an approximate formula for the period of conservative oscillations in nonlinear second order ordinary differential equations. Nonlinear Sci Lett A 2017; 8: 348–351.

32.

JH.

An approximate amplitude-frequency relationship for a nonlinear oscillator with discontinuity. Nonlinear Sci Lett A 2016; 7: 77–85.

33.

Nimafar

Akbari

Ganji

, et al. Akbari-Ganji method for vibration under external harmonic load. Nonlinear Sci Lett A 2017; 8: 416–437.