1

While solving a PDE problem involving the Laplace equation in 3D, I arrive at the following summation relation when i substitute the only non-homogeneous boundary condition available

$$ \sum_{m=1}^{\infty}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}A_{n,m}\cos(\frac{n\pi x}{L})\cos(\frac{m\pi y}{l})\sqrt{\frac{n^2\pi^2}{L^2}+\frac{m^2\pi^2}{l^2}}\sinh\bigg(w\sqrt{\frac{n^2\pi^2}{L^2}+\frac{m^2\pi^2}{l^2}}\bigg) = p_h\bigg(\sum_{m=1}^{\infty}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}A_{n,m}\cos(\frac{m\pi y}{l})\cos(\frac{n\pi x}{L})\cosh\bigg(w\sqrt{\frac{n^2\pi^2}{L^2}+\frac{m^2\pi^2}{l^2}}\bigg) - \sum_{m=1}^{\infty}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{A_{n,m}b_h}{b_h^2 + n^2 \pi^2 }\cos(\frac{m\pi y}{l})\cosh\bigg(w\sqrt{\frac{n^2\pi^2}{L^2}+\frac{m^2\pi^2}{l^2}}\bigg)\bigg[b_h\cos(\frac{n\pi x}{L}) + n\pi\sin(\frac{n\pi x}{L}) \bigg]\bigg) $$

I need to find the Fourier coefficients here, denoted by $A_{n,m}$.

Known

As a starting point i know that if $\cos(\frac{m\pi x}{L})$ and $\cos(\frac{n\pi y}{l})$ is multiplied on the RHS and LHS of the whole equation i could use the known orthogonality of

$\int_{0}^{L} \cos(\frac{n\pi x}{L})\cos(\frac{m\pi y}{L})$ and $\int_{0}^{L} \cos(\frac{n\pi x}{l})\cos(\frac{m\pi y}{l})$

But the problem is, I will get a term like $\int_{0}^{L} \cos(\frac{m\pi x}{L})\sin(\frac{n\pi x}{L})$.

I do not know what to do with this term. Additionally, I have another doubt as to how the $A_{n,m}$ occurring on both sides of the equation are to be handled. Also, I have done 2D problems but how to handle this 3D case ? Is a double integration required ?

Note

The question asked has its origin as follows:-

From a solution of the form

$$ T(x,y,z)=\sum_{m=1}^{\infty}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}A_{n,m}\cos(\frac{n\pi x}{L})\cos(\frac{m\pi y}{l})\cosh\left(\sqrt{\frac{n^2\pi^2}{L^2}+\frac{m^2\pi^2}{l^2}}z\right). $$

with bc(s) as:

$\frac{\partial T(0,y,z)}{\partial x}=\frac{\partial T(L,y,z)}{\partial x}=0 $

$\frac{\partial T(x,0,z)}{\partial y}=\frac{\partial T(x,l,z)}{\partial y}=0$

$$\frac{\partial T(x,y,-w)}{\partial z}=p_h\bigg( T(x,y,-w) - \frac{e^\frac{-b_h x}{L}b_h}{L}\int e^\frac{b_h x}{L}T\mathrm{d}x \bigg) $$

$ \frac{\partial T(x,y,0)}{\partial z} = 0. $

Extra information From the physical problem available at hand the following is too known:-

$$\frac{\partial T(0,y,-w)}{\partial z}=p_h\bigg( T(0,y,-w) - T_i\bigg) $$


Attempt

Multiplying both sides by $\cos(\frac{k\pi x}{L})$ and $\cos(\frac{j\pi y}{l})$ assuming that the series converges, converting the summation to an integration, first for $x$ and then for $y$, followed by using orthogonality.

$$ \sum\sum A_{n,m}\sqrt{()}\sinh(w\sqrt{()})\bigg(\frac{L}{2} \vee n=k\bigg)\bigg(\frac{l}{2} \vee m=j\bigg) = p_h\bigg[\sum\sum A_{n,m}\cosh(w\sqrt{()})\bigg(\frac{L}{2} \vee n=k\bigg)\bigg(\frac{l}{2} \vee m=j\bigg)- \sum\sum\frac{A_{n,m}b_h^2}{b_h^2 + n^2 \pi^2}\cosh(w\sqrt{()})\bigg(\frac{L}{2} \vee n=k\bigg)\bigg(\frac{l}{2} \vee m=j\bigg)\bigg] $$

leads to

$$ A_{k,j}\sqrt{()}\sinh(w\sqrt{()})\bigg(\frac{L}{2}\bigg)\bigg(\frac{l}{2} \bigg) = p_h\bigg[A_{k,j}\cosh(w\sqrt{()})\bigg(\frac{L}{2}\bigg)\bigg(\frac{l}{2}\bigg)-\frac{A_{k,j}b_h^2}{b_h^2 + n^2 \pi^2}\cosh(w\sqrt{()})\bigg(\frac{L}{2}\bigg)\bigg(\frac{l}{2}\bigg)\bigg] $$

Hence, $A_{k,j}$ needs to be evaluated. But still I have the problem of $A_{k,j}$ cancelling out from the resulting equation.

Avrana
  • 141
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_trigonometric_identities#Product-to-sum_and_sum-to-product_identities – Paul Sinclair Feb 17 '19 at 00:09
  • @PaulSinclair I followed the link you suggested. I have thought about writing $\cos(\frac{m\pi x}{L})\sin(\frac{n\pi x}{L})$ as $\frac{1}{2}\bigg(\sin(\frac{m\pi x}{L} + \frac{n\pi x}{L}) +\sin(\frac{m\pi x}{L} - \frac{n\pi x}{L})\bigg)$. But now the arguments of these $\sin$ functions are different from the rest of the equation. Can you elaborate a bit more ? – Avrana Feb 17 '19 at 01:36
  • Ypu are integrating them from $0$ to $L$. What happens when you integrate those two terms over a this range? – Paul Sinclair Feb 17 '19 at 01:49
  • @PaulSinclair $\cos(\frac{m\pi x}{L})\sin(\frac{n\pi x}{L})$ .On integrating ove this range they just result in $0$ ? – Avrana Feb 17 '19 at 01:59
  • Exactly. $\cos m\theta$ and $\sin n\theta$ are orthogonal to each other even when $m = n$. – Paul Sinclair Feb 17 '19 at 02:05
  • @PaulSinclair Thanks for making this clear. So my next step should be to multiply $\cos(\frac{m \pi x}{L})$ and $\cos(\frac{n \pi y}{l})$ on both sides and then perform double integration ? Sorry to repeat , but I am just a little confused with $A_{m,n}$ occuring on both sides. – Avrana Feb 17 '19 at 03:13
  • No. Don't just assume that because you know something works in one dimension, a two dimenstional variant will also work (this is rarely true). Instead, stick with what you know. Multiply by just the $x$ function and integrate with respect to $x$. Now that $x$ is gone, multiply by the $y$ function and integrate with respect to $y$. – Paul Sinclair Feb 17 '19 at 03:23
  • @PaulSinclair I tried what you recommended but it seems that the term $A_{n,m}$ just cancel out from both sides of the equation. To be more clear I have added my attempt at the end of the original question. If possible have a look at the problem. – Avrana Feb 17 '19 at 04:13
  • You are overlooking the point. You multiply by $\cos \frac {k\pi x}L$ and integrate. Every term that involves a value of $n$ other than $n = k$ disappears But the $n=k$ term remains. Then you multiply by $\cos \frac {j\pi y}L$, and integrate over $y$, and every term involving $m$ other $m = j$ also disappears, but $m = j$ also remains, so now you have only the $j,k$ terms on the right and left (and the $\sin$ term is gone even for $j,k$). Instead of comparing two full summations, you are now able to claim that just these terms are equal to each other. – Paul Sinclair Feb 17 '19 at 04:29
  • @PaulSinclair I understood your suggestions. And I applied them, really confused here. I am sorry, but the problem still remains. Have a look at my addition to the original question. – Avrana Feb 17 '19 at 05:25
  • Sorry to take so long to get back to you. There is something very suspicious about the boundary conditions you added: The indefinite integral. In applying it, you obviously interpreted this integral as a particular function. But indefinite integrals are not a single function. They are families of functions that all differ from each other by a constant. I don't know how where this integral came from, but it is likely that when you first introduced it, you should have applied some condition at that time to determine which function is correct. – Paul Sinclair Feb 22 '19 at 01:31
  • @PaulSinclair Hey Paul. Since, then I have posted another question on MSE and a user helped me to rewrite the boundary condition in a different form. With those boundary conditions the problem of $A_{nm}$ cancelling out seems to have diasppeared, but i still face the problem of determining $A_{nm}$ due to the presence of an exponential term now. The link to that question is https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/3117489/two-fluids-flowing-perpendicular-in-thermal-contact-with-a-wall-help-to-mathema/3118677#3118677. Have a look. – Avrana Feb 22 '19 at 03:37
  • @PaulSinclair As you would now see in the new question, that the indefinite integrals are now definite which exactly corroborates what you were doubting in your last comment here. – Avrana Feb 22 '19 at 04:12

1 Answers1

2

I admit that I had failed to check this at the start: you have $A_{m,n}$ on both sides. One solution to your original equation is just $A_{m,n} = 0$ for all $m,n$. And in fact, that is the only solution.

To see this, multiply by $\sin\left(\frac{k\pi x}L\right)$ and take the $\int_0^{2L}\ \ dx$ integral of both sides (note the $2L$ - you have to integrate over a full period, and that is $2L$, not $L$). Every term with $\cos\left(\frac{n\pi x}L\right)$ in it becomes $0$. And the only $\sin\left(\frac{n\pi x}L\right)$ term that survives is $n = k$. Now, $\int_0^{2L}\sin^2\left(\frac{k\pi x}L\right)\,dx = L$, so the result is

$$0 = -p_h\left[\sum_{m=1}^{\infty}\frac{A_{k,m}b_h}{b_h^2 + k^2 \pi^2 }\cos(\frac{m\pi y}{l})\cosh\left(w\sqrt{\frac{k^2\pi^2}{L^2}+\frac{m^2\pi^2}{l^2}}\right)k\pi L \right]$$

Then we multiply through by $\cos\left(\frac{j\pi y}l\right)$ and take the $\int_0^{2l}\ \ dy$ integral, which similarly leaves us with

$$0 =-p_h\left[\frac{A_{k,j}b_h}{b_h^2 + k^2 \pi^2 }l\cosh\left(w\sqrt{\frac{k^2\pi^2}{L^2}+\frac{j^2\pi^2}{l^2}}\right)k\pi L \right]$$ $\cosh$ is never $0$. If we assume that $p_h, b_h, L$, and $l$ are all non-zero, this solves to $A_{k,j} = 0$.

Either you have an error in deriving the equation posted, or else your solution is $0$.

Paul Sinclair
  • 45,932
  • Thankyou Paul. I will recheck my derivations. Actually the only non-homogeneous BC in the problem (if you see the note in the question) has $A_{m,n}$ in all the terms which is what causes the problem. Although i do have an extra information which tells that at $(0,y,-w)$ (instead of $(x,y,-w)$ in the original problem) the bc is $\frac{\partial T(0,y,-w)}{\partial x} = p_h(T(0,y,-w)-T_i)$ where $T_i$ is a constant.This does remove the $A_{m,n}$ cancelling out problem. But now this reduces the bc to an edge type condition in a 3D problem. – Avrana Feb 17 '19 at 17:35
  • I have added this information to the original question. Thankyou anyway. Your comments and answer really made a lot of muddy points clear. – Avrana Feb 17 '19 at 17:42
  • By $\frac{\partial T(x,y,-w)}{\partial z}$, do you mean $\frac{\partial T}{\partial z}(x,y,-w)$, or are any or all of $x, y, w$ supposed to be a function of $z$? (This is an order of operations question - the way you wrote it, T is evaluated at (x,y,-w) first, then the result is differentiated by $z$. But unless the other variables are functions of $z$, the differentiation will be $0$.) – Paul Sinclair Feb 17 '19 at 17:49
  • Sorry, my bad. It is $\frac{\partial T}{\partial x}$ at $(x,y,-w)$. In words : the derivative of $T$ evaluated at $(x,y,-w)$ – Avrana Feb 17 '19 at 18:00
  • Added another attempt to https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/3117489/two-fluids-flowing-perpendicular-in-thermal-contact-with-a-wall-help-to-mathema . the exponential is still what causes problems. have a look if you get time. – Avrana Feb 23 '19 at 16:27