Math 102 HW 8 ODEs

Title: Oscillating Chemical Reactions

Authors: Bukuru Anaclet, Sanjar Junisbai, and Siddharth Namachivayam

Date: April 14th

Team members roles:

1. Project leader: Sanjar Junisbai
2. Scribe: Siddharth Namachivayam
3. Harmonizer: Bukuru Anaclet

Abstract: This project attempts to model autocatalytic chemical reactions with a system
of nonlinear differential equations. Depending on the parameter values of the state variables’
coefficients, we found that the orbits of these equations sometimes exhibited surprising os-
cillatory behavior. These results challenge the classical chemical intuition that all reactions
tend toward characteristic equilibria, and instead suggest that it is possible for reactions to
theoretically fall into non-constant steady states.

Introduction
To begin, we first modeled the relatively simple autocatalator shown in Figure 1 to study
on/off oscillatory in chemical reactions:

Figure 1: Simple autocatalator

We then used the more complex oregonator model shown in Figure 2 to study persistent
oscillations and proper limit cycles:

Figure 2: Equations for oregonator

We first wrote down the rate equations for each of the above reactions reactions in a non-
linear differential system and then non-dimensonalized the equations to conduct appropriate
parameter studies.
Using an adaptive solver on Matlab (specifically ODE23), we qualitatively observed the
behavior of different linear differential systems. We analyzed the transients of the undriven
solutions and observed their behavior with time. We dealt with driven and undriven systems
and considered steady state solutions, as well as unbounded solutions. In certain cases, we
analyzed when they had resonance in cases with periodic driving terms. We also analyzed
the commensurability (i.e. periodicity) of the solutions.

1
Observation:
1. (a) This system is undriven when the terms F1 = F2 = F3 = 0. Observing the
long-term behavior of each of the components, it is clear that the solutions to this
system are transients; in other words, they tend to zero. Below are the component
curves plotted, one with a relatively small time interval (where this behavior is
more difficult to observe) and another with a large time interval.

Figure2.jpg

Figure 3: Component curves of undriven system

(b) Observing each of the periodic components, we want to produce an estimate of the
time interval it takes for all three periods to align. Qualitatively we see that it is
roughly 2π. The first graph displays the components over the time interval [0, 100],
while the second displays the same components over a smaller time interval, [0, 10].
The periods are more easily observable in the latter figure.

2
12.jpg

Figure 4: Component curves converging to steady state

3
 Hehe.jpg

Figure 5: Smaller interval on Figure 2 for clarity

(c) Based on Theorem 6.7.1, when F0 is a constant vector, we expect the system to
have the constant state solution −A−1 F0 . A few computations show that this
 T
unique steady state vector should be .61756 .28610 .44920 . This is in line
with the graphs produced by the simulation.

4
 1c.jpg

Figure 6: Steady state response

(d) The steady state is not periodic, though it may appear to be so at first glance.
There is no least common multiple to the driven components because the x com-
ponent has an irrational period, while the y component has a rational period.
Regardless of the z component’s period, they will be incommensurate.

5
 1d.jpg

Figure 7: Component curves with incommensurate periods

2. (a) The orbit is steady state in this case. It does appear to be periodic, with a period
of roughly 0.75.

6
 2a.jpg

Figure 8: Component curves for undriven system

(b) We do observe resonance. Despite the relatively small amplitude of the driving
term, the figure below reveals a high amplitude response of the steady state. The
least common multiple of the three driving components, 2π/5, is roughly similar to
the period observed in (a), so resonance is expected and in line with our qualitative
observation.

7
 2b.jpg

Figure 9: Resonating component curves

(c) Interestingly enough, replacing the term sin(5t) with sin(π∗t) still reveals resonant
behavior in the equilibrium solution. however, the periods of the components
are incommensurate as some are rational and other are irrational. We observe
resonance because the periods are roughly similar still; however, the steady state
solution is not truly periodic.

8
 2c.jpg

Figure 10: Incommensurate resonance within component curves

3. (a) The purely imaginary eigenvalues below suggest that cos(t) and sin(t) will be the
only time-dependent terms in the general solutions to the differential systems. For
this reason, we expect there to be steady states with no resonance. However, the
component curves plotted on the second graph in Figure 9 clearly have unbounded
amplitudes, contradicting our intuition. To be honest, the reason for this undriven
resonance is not entirely clear, hence we have left this problem as an exercise for
the reader.

sanjarpic.jpg

9
 3a1.jpg 3a2.jpg

Figure 11: Graphs of component curves for both systems

 0   
x1 0 1 x1
=
x2 −1 0 x2
 0   
x3 0 1 x3
=
x4 −2 0 x4
(b) Though the steady state appears periodic at a glance, a closer look reveals that it
is not. The periods of these three terms are incommensurate, so the steady state
solution is not periodic. The figure below demonstrates this.

3b.jpg

Figure 12: Component curves for driven system

10
Conclusion:
In this project, we observed qualitative differences between undriven, constant driven, and
periodic driven differential systems. We found that resonance occurred when the period of the
driving term was roughly similar to the period of the undriven solution. Resonance aligned
with a growing amplitude response in the solution. In other cases, particularly where the
period of the driving terms and undriven solutions were rational and irrational, we observed
the incommensurability of periods. All in all, this was an enjoyable exploration of driven
linear systems!

References:
Matlab

11