Skip to main content

differential equations - How to solve a certain coupled first order PDE system


I would like to find the solution $(U,V)\equiv (U(x,t),V(x,t))$ of the following system.


\begin{equation} \displaystyle\left\{\begin{array}{l} \frac{\partial U}{\partial t}+(a+b x)\frac{\partial U}{\partial x}-(c+k_1)U+k_1V=0, \\ \frac{\partial V}{\partial t}+(a+b x)\frac{\partial V}{\partial x}-(c+k_2)V+k_2 U=0, \\ \end{array}\right. t\in [s,T] \end{equation}


with the boundary conditions (where $W$ could be $U$ and $V$)


\begin{equation} \left\{\begin{array}{l} W(x,t)=0 \ \ \text{as} \ \ x\to-\infty,\\ W(x,t)\to e^x \ \ \text{as} \ \ x\to\infty,\\ W(x,T)=\max \{ e^x-100,0\} \\ \end{array}\right. \end{equation}


Assuming that above system has a unique solution, $(U,V)$, how can I find that solution. I would be satisfied to given a reference to a paper from which I can learn a method to solve it.



Can Mathematica solve this system?


Added after I got the answer from the above system: when I modified the codes of bbgodfrey to solve the followin system :


\begin{equation} \displaystyle\left\{\begin{array}{l} \frac{\partial U}{\partial t}+(\textbf{a}_1+b x)\frac{\partial U}{\partial x}-(c+k_1)U+k_1V=0, \\ \frac{\partial V}{\partial t}+(\textbf{a}_2+b x)\frac{\partial V}{\partial x}-(c+k_2)V+k_2 U=0, \\ \end{array}\right. t\in [s,T] \end{equation}


when I run the program, Mathematican seems runs out of memory. Is there any way to fix this issues or this is because Mathematica cannot solve the new system ?



Answer



The constant c can be eliminated from the equations by a standard transformation.


eq1 = (Unevaluated[D[u[x, t], t] + (a + b x) D[u[x, t], x] - (c + k1) u[x, t] + k1 v[x, t]]
    /. {u[x, t] -> uu[x, t] E^(c t), v[x, t] -> vv[x, t] E^(c t)})/E^(c t) // Simplify
(* -(k1*uu[x, t]) + k1*vv[x, t] + Derivative[0, 1][uu][x, t] + 
   a*Derivative[1, 0][uu][x, t] + b*x*Derivative[1, 0][uu][x, t] *)


and similarly for the second expression, designated eq2. Taking the difference between these two expressions yields


Collect[(eq1 - eq2) // Simplify, {a + b x, k1 + k2}, Simplify]
(* (k1 + k2)*(-uu[x, t] + vv[x, t]) + Derivative[0, 1][uu][x, t] - Derivative[0, 1][vv][x, t]
    + (a + b*x)*(Derivative[1, 0][uu][x, t] - Derivative[1, 0][vv][x, t]) *)

which can be rewritten as


-((k1 + k2)*zz[x, t]) + Derivative[0, 1][zz][x, t] + (a + b*x)*Derivative[1, 0][zz][x, t]

where zz == uu - vv. And, this equation can be solved



First@DSolve[% == 0, zz[x, t], {x, t}]
(* {zz[x, t] -> (a + b*x)^(k1/b + k2/b) C[1][(b t - Log[a + b x])/b]} *)

Undoing the original transformation then yields


First@Solve[% /. Rule -> Equal /. zz[x, t] -> z[x, t] E^(-c t), z[x, t]]
{* {z[x, t] -> E^(c t) (a + b*x)^(k1/b + k2/b) C[1][(b t - Log[a + b x])/b]} *)

Note that C[1] is an arbitrary function of (b t - Log[a + b x])/b, which can be chosen to satisfy the boundary conditions in x.


Alternative, Simpler Approach


DSolve cannot integrate the two equations as written in the question. However, the equations can be separated, after which DSolve can integrate them without difficulty.



r0 = First@Solve[{z[x, t] == u[x, t] - v[x, t], 
  y[x, t] == u[x, t] + v[x, t] k1/k2}, {u[x, t], v[x, t]}];
eq1 = (Unevaluated[D[u[x, t], t] + (a + b x) D[u[x, t], x] - (c + k1) u[x, t] + 
  k1 v[x, t]] /. %) // Simplify;
eq2 = (Unevaluated[D[v[x, t], t] + (a + b x) D[v[x, t], x] - (c + k2) v[x, t] + 
  k2 u[x, t]] /. %%) // Simplify;

Simplify[eq1 - eq2];
r1 = Simplify[#] & /@ DSolve[% == 0, z[x, t], {x, t}][[1, 1]]
(* z[x, t] -> (a + b x)^((c + k1 + k2)/b) C[1][t - Log[a + b x]/b] *)


Simplify[eq1 + eq2 k1/k2];
r2 = Simplify[#] & /@ DSolve[% == 0, y[x, t], {x, t}][[1, 1]] /. C[1] -> C[2]
(* y[x, t] -> (a + b x)^(c/b) C[2][t - Log[a + b x]/b] *)

r0 /. {r1, r2}
(* {u[x, t] -> -((-k1 (a + b x)^((c + k1 + k2)/b)
  C[1][t - Log[a + b x]/b] - k2 (a + b x)^(c/b) C[2][t - Log[a + b x]/b])/(k1 + k2)), 
    v[x, t] -> -((k2 (a + b x)^((c + k1 + k2)/b) 
  C[1][t - Log[a + b x]/b] - k2 (a + b x)^(c/b) C[2][t - Log[a + b x]/b])/(k1 + k2))} *)


Note that the solution contains two arbitrary functions C[1] and C[2] of (b t - Log[a + b x])/b, as it must, because the original equations form a second order system of advective equations.


Note also that the earlier, incomplete solution would eventually have reached the same point.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

plotting - Filling between two spheres in SphericalPlot3D

Manipulate[ SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, Mesh -> None, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], {n, 0, 1}] I cant' seem to be able to make a filling between two spheres. I've already tried the obvious Filling -> {1 -> {2}} but Mathematica doesn't seem to like that option. Is there any easy way around this or ... Answer There is no built-in filling in SphericalPlot3D . One option is to use ParametricPlot3D to draw the surfaces between the two shells: Manipulate[ Show[SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], ParametricPlot3D[{ r {Sin[t] Cos[1.5 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[1.5 Pi], Cos[t]}, r {Sin[t] Cos[0 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[0 Pi], Cos[t]}}, {r, 1, 2 - n}, {t, 0, Pi}, PlotStyle -> Yellow, Mesh -> {2, 15}]], {n, 0, 1}]
Post a Comment
Read more

plotting - Plot 4D data with color as 4th dimension

I have a list of 4D data (x position, y position, amplitude, wavelength). I want to plot x, y, and amplitude on a 3D plot and have the color of the points correspond to the wavelength. I have seen many examples using functions to define color but my wavelength cannot be expressed by an analytic function. Is there a simple way to do this? Answer Here a another possible way to visualize 4D data: data = Flatten[Table[{x, y, x^2 + y^2, Sin[x - y]}, {x, -Pi, Pi,Pi/10}, {y,-Pi,Pi, Pi/10}], 1]; You can use the function Point along with VertexColors . Now the points are places using the first three elements and the color is determined by the fourth. In this case I used Hue, but you can use whatever you prefer. Graphics3D[ Point[data[[All, 1 ;; 3]], VertexColors -> Hue /@ data[[All, 4]]], Axes -> True, BoxRatios -> {1, 1, 1/GoldenRatio}]
Post a Comment
Read more

plotting - Mathematica: 3D plot based on combined 2D graphs

I have several sigmoidal fits to 3 different datasets, with mean fit predictions plus the 95% confidence limits (not symmetrical around the mean) and the actual data. I would now like to show these different 2D plots projected in 3D as in but then using proper perspective. In the link here they give some solutions to combine the plots using isometric perspective, but I would like to use proper 3 point perspective. Any thoughts? Also any way to show the mean points per time point for each series plus or minus the standard error on the mean would be cool too, either using points+vertical bars, or using spheres plus tubes. Below are some test data and the fit function I am using. Note that I am working on a logit(proportion) scale and that the final vertical scale is Log10(percentage). (* some test data *) data = Table[Null, {i, 4}]; data[[1]] = {{1, -5.8}, {2, -5.4}, {3, -0.8}, {4, -0.2}, {5, 4.6}, {1, -6.4}, {2, -5.6}, {3, -0.7}, {4, 0.04}, {5, 1.0}, {1, -6.8}, {2, -4.7}, {3, -1.
Post a Comment
Read more