1: \documentstyle[aps,preprint]{revtex}
2: %\documentstyle[twocolumn,aps]{revtex}
3: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
4: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
5: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
6: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
7: \renewcommand{\topfraction}{1}
8: \renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{1}
9: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0}
10: \newcommand{\sh}{Swift-Hohenberg equation}
11: \newcommand{\HR}[1]{\footnote{HR: {#1}}}
12: \newcommand{\CC}[1]{\footnote{CC: {#1}}}
13: \input epsf
14:
15: \begin{document}
16: \pagestyle{plain}
17: %\bibliographystyle{/usr/local/lib/tex/macros/prsty}
18: \bibliographystyle{prsty}
19: \title{Tunable front interaction and localization of periodically forced waves}
20: \author{Catherine Crawford\thanks{Corresponding author.
21: Current Address: Elmhurst College, Department of Mathematics, 190
22: Prospect Ave., Elmhurst, IL 60126; Tel: (630) 617-3479; E-mail:
23: crawford@elmhurst.edu} and Hermann Riecke}
24: \address{Department of Engineering Sciences and Applied Mathematics,
25: Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208, USA}
26: \date{\today}
27: \maketitle
28:
29: \begin{abstract}
30:
31: In systems that exhibit a bistability between nonlinear traveling waves and the
32: basic state, pairs of fronts connecting these two states can form localized
33: wave pulses whose stability depends on the interaction between the fronts. We
34: investigate wave pulses within the framework of coupled
35: Ginzburg-Landau equations describing the traveling-wave amplitudes. We find
36: that the introduction of resonant temporal forcing results in a {\em new,
37: tunable} mechanism for stabilizing such wave pulses. In contrast to other
38: localization mechanisms the temporal forcing can achieve localization by a
39: repulsive as well as by an attractive interaction between the fronts. Systems
40: for which the results are expected to be relevant include binary-mixture
41: convection and electroconvection in nematic liquid crystals.
42:
43: \end{abstract}
44:
45: \section{Introduction}
46:
47: Localized structures have been observed in a range of pattern-forming
48: nonequilibrium systems. One type of localized structure occurs when one pattern
49: is embedded within another pattern. Examples include the coexisting stationary
50: domains of long and short wavelengths observed in Taylor-Couette flow between
51: co-rotating cylinders \cite{BaAn86}, in Rayleigh-B\'{e}nard convection in
52: narrow slots \cite{HeVi92}, and in parametrically excited waves in ferrofluids
53: \cite{MaRe98}. Solitary waves drifting through a stationary pattern are found
54: associated with a parity-breaking bifurcation in directional solidification
55: \cite{SiBe88}, the printer instability \cite{RaMi90}, viscous fingering
56: \cite{CuFo93}, cellular flames \cite{GoEl94}, and Taylor-vortex flow
57: \cite{WiMc92}.
58:
59: In this paper, we investigate a class of localized states in which the
60: pattern is confined to a small region that is surrounded by the unpatterned state, or
61: vice versa. For example, solitary standing waves (`oscillons') have been
62: observed in vertically vibrated granular layers \cite{UmMe96} and colloidal
63: suspensions \cite{LiHa99}. Localized traveling waves have been observed as
64: one-dimensional pulses in binary-fluid mixtures
65: \cite{MoFi87,KoBe88,NiAh90,Ko91,Ko94} and as two-dimensional `worms' in
66: electroconvection of nematic liquid crystals \cite{DeAh96a}.
67:
68: For a general understanding of such structures the mechanisms that are
69: responsible for their localization are of particular interest. A number of
70: different types of localization mechanisms have been identified (e.g.
71: \cite{Ri99}). To provide a context for our results we briefly review the
72: main mechanisms.
73:
74: The stable coexistence of domains of long and short wavelengths can be
75: understood to be due to the instability of the constant wavenumber state
76: combined with the conservation of the phase
77: \cite{BrDe89,BrDe90,DeLe90,Ri90,RaRi95a}. Localized patterns can also be
78: stabilized by a non-adiabatic pinning of the large-scale envelope to the
79: underlying small-scale pattern \cite{Po86,BeSh88}. This pinning has been
80: suggested as a possible localization mechanism for oscillons \cite{CrRi99}.
81:
82: To understand the traveling-wave pulses in binary mixture convection, two
83: mechanisms have been put forward, dispersion \cite{FaTh90,MaNe90,HaPo91} and
84: the advection of a slowly decaying concentration mode
85: \cite{Ri92,HeRi95,RiRa95,Ri96}. Within the framework of the complex
86: Ginzburg-Landau equation with strong dispersion, pulses and holes can be viewed
87: as perturbed bright and dark solitons of the nonlinear Schr\"{o}dinger equation
88: \cite{ElMe89,ThFa88,LeFa97}. For weak dispersion, pulses have been described
89: as a pair of bound fronts. In the absence of dispersion they are unstable.
90: However, dispersion may result in a repulsive interaction between the two
91: fronts and a stable pulse can arise \cite{MaNe90,HaPo91}. Similarly, the
92: advected mode modifies the interaction between fronts and can also provide a
93: stabilizing repulsive interaction. A similar advective mechanism has been
94: invoked \cite{RiGr98} to explain the two-dimensional localized waves (`worms')
95: that have been observed in electroconvection in nematic liquid crystals
96: \cite{DeAh96a}.
97:
98: More generally, the coupling of a pattern to an additional undamped (or weakly damped) mode
99: can lead to its localization \cite{CoMa01}. In the drift waves
100: arising from a parity-breaking bifurcation, the local wavenumber of the
101: underlying pattern plays the role of the additional mode \cite{CaCa92,RiPa92}.
102: For the oscillons in vibrated granular media it has been suggested that a
103: coupling of the surface wave to a mode representing the local height of the
104: granular layer is important \cite{TsAr97}.
105:
106: For traveling waves it is well known that the external application of a resonant
107: temporal forcing excites the counter propagating wave
108: \cite{RiCr88,Wa88,RiCr90}. A natural question is therefore whether the
109: counterpropagating wave can play a role similar to the various additional modes
110: mentioned above and can thus lead to the localization of the traveling wave into a
111: pulse. Since the temporal forcing is easily controlled externally this
112: localization mechanism would be {\em tunable}.
113:
114: In this paper we investigate the effect of time-periodic forcing on
115: spatially localized waves that arise in systems exhibiting a subcritical
116: bifurcation to traveling waves as is, for instance, the case in binary-mixture
117: convection. We expect the results also to be relevant for the worms observed
118: in electroconvection in nematic liquid crystals.
119:
120: We first consider the effect of forcing on the interaction of
121: fronts in the absence of other localization mechanisms and show
122: that forcing alone can lead to localized structures. This new
123: localization mechanism can stabilize pulses with either a
124: repulsive or an attractive interaction. While the interaction
125: strength between fronts is usually determined by the system
126: parameters, forcing allows the strength to be controlled
127: externally. To focus on the interaction of the fronts due to the
128: temporal forcing, we start in Section \ref{sec:derivation} with
129: two coupled dispersionless Ginzburg-Landau equations and derive
130: evolution equations for the fronts. In Section
131: \ref{sec:discussion} we discuss the resulting front equations and
132: compare them with numerical calculations. Section \ref{sec:holes}
133: extends the analysis and discussion to include holes and multiple
134: pulses. The combined effect of temporal forcing and dispersion is
135: investigated in Section \ref{sec:disp} and conclusions are
136: presented in Section \ref{sec:conclusion}.
137:
138: \section{Derivation of the front equations} \label{sec:derivation}
139:
140: Motivated by the pulses observed in binary mixture convection
141: \cite{MoFi87,KoBe88,NiAh90,Ko91,Ko94} and the
142: worms in electroconvection \cite{DeAh96a} we consider a
143: subcritical bifurcation to traveling waves in a one-dimensional
144: system that is parametrically forced. To obtain a weakly nonlinear
145: description, physical quantities like the temperature ${\cal T}$ of the
146: fluid in the midplane in convection, say, are expanded in terms of the
147: amplitudes $A$ and $B$, of the left and right traveling waves,
148: \be
149: {\cal T} = \epsilon^{1/2}\left\{ A(x,t) e^{i(q_c\tilde{x}-\frac{\omega_e}{2} \tilde{t})} +
150: B(x,t)e^{-i(q_c\tilde{x}+\frac{\omega_e}{2} \tilde{t})} \right\} + c.c. + h.o.t.,
151: \qquad \epsilon \ll 1, \label{e:expand}
152: \ee
153: where $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{x}$ are the fast time and space
154: coordinates. The amplitudes $A$ and $B$ are allowed to vary on a
155: slow time scale $t$ and a slow spatial scale $x$. Due to
156: the external periodic forcing $\epsilon^2\,\nu e^{i \omega_e \tilde{t}}$ close to twice
157: the Hopf frequency, $\omega_e = 2 (\omega_h+\epsilon^2\Omega)$,
158: the expansion (\ref{e:expand}) is chosen in terms of the forcing frequency.
159: The forcing excites the oppositely traveling waves and breaks the time
160: translation symmetry, resulting to lowest order in a linear
161: coupling between the two wave amplitudes.
162: Using the remaining spatial
163: translation and reflection symmetries of the system,
164: the form of the amplitude equations for $A$ and $B$ can
165: be derived \cite{RiCr88,Wa88,RiCr90}.
166: Hence we study the following set of
167: coupled Ginzburg-Landau equations as a model describing the system,
168: \bea
169: \partial_t A & = & -s\partial_x A + \epsilon^2 d_2 \partial_{xx} A
170: + \mu A +c|A|^2 A- p|A|^4A \nonumber \\
171: &&- g|B|^2 A - r|A|^2|B|^2 A -u|B|^4 A + \nu B^* \label{e:ampA} \\
172: \partial_t B & = & +s\partial_x B + \epsilon^2 d_2 \partial_{xx} B
173: + \mu B +c|B|^2 B -p|B|^4B \nonumber \\
174: &&- g|A|^2 B - r|A|^2|B|^2 B -u|A|^4 B + \nu A^*, \label{e:ampB}
175: \eea
176: where the forcing coefficient $\nu$ and the group velocity $s$ are
177: real. All other coefficients may be complex. However,
178: to focus on the interaction of the fronts due to temporal forcing,
179: the front equations are derived for the case in which all of the
180: coefficients are real, i.e. neglecting dispersion and detuning.
181: Nonlinear gradient terms which would also appear in
182: equations (\ref{e:ampA}) and (\ref{e:ampB}) to the order considered
183: have also been neglected. In order for the bifurcation to be
184: weakly subcritical, the cubic coefficients must be small enough to allow a
185: balance with the quintic terms.
186:
187: The bifurcation to spatially extended traveling waves in electroconvection in
188: nematic liquid crystals appears to be supercritical \cite{TrKr97}. To explain
189: the observation of worms already below the onset of spatially extended waves,
190: it has been argued that a weakly damped mode is relevant that is advected by
191: the wave \cite{RiGr98}. Already below threshold such a mode can lead to the
192: existence of infinitely long worms, i.e. to convection structures that are
193: narrow in the $y$-direction, say, and spatially periodic in the $x$-direction
194: \cite{RiGr98,Ri99}. They are expected to arise in a secondary bifurcation off
195: the spatially extended traveling waves \cite{RoRi01}. Focusing on the dynamics
196: of the worms in the $x$-direction, the head and the tail of the worms can be
197: considered as leading and trailing fronts that connect the nonlinear state,
198: which is strongly localized in the $y$-direction, with the basic non-convective
199: state. It is reasonable to expect that Ginzburg-Landau equations for a
200: subcritical bifurcation will capture the qualitative aspects of these
201: structures.
202:
203: With the usual scaling $x=\epsilon \tilde{x}$
204: complex Ginzburg-Landau equations are obtained in which the growth
205: term $\mu A$ is balanced by the diffusive term $d\partial_{xx} A$.
206: For group velocities of order 1 this implies that the term $s\partial_{x} A$
207: is inconsistent with the rest of the equation, i.e. it is of
208: {\em lower} order. However, by considering slower spatial scales
209: $x = \epsilon^2 \tilde{x}$, the advective term $s\partial_x A$ is of the same
210: order as $\mu A$ and the diffusive term then appears in the
211: re-scaled equations (\ref{e:ampA}) and (\ref{e:ampB}) as a
212: higher-order correction of ${\cal O}(\epsilon^2)$ as indicated in
213: (\ref{e:ampA}) and (\ref{e:ampB}) \cite{MaVe96}.
214:
215: We are interested in localized solutions made up of two bound fronts
216: connecting the basic state with the nonlinear state as sketched in
217: Figure~\ref{fig:front}. One contribution to the interaction between the
218: fronts arises from their overlap. For large distances it is small,
219: inducing a weak {\it attractive} interaction, which destabilizes pulses.
220: However, since the diffusion is weak (${\cal O}(\epsilon^2)$),
221: resulting in steep fronts in A, the overlap between the fronts is of
222: higher order in $\epsilon$ and the associated interaction can be
223: ignored. Hence the interaction between the fronts is dominated by
224: the presence of the oppositely traveling wave excited by the periodic
225: forcing. The small diffusion coefficient causes internal layers to arise
226: at the positions of the fronts. The two bound fronts are then divided
227: into the five regions sketched in Figure~\ref{fig:front}, where $x_L$
228: and $x_R$ give the positions of the left and right fronts. Within regions
229: I, III, and V the amplitude of $A$ is constant. Regions II and IV are
230: regions of rapid change where the dynamics of the fronts are
231: determined. The internal layers have a width
232: $\Delta x={\cal O}(\epsilon)$, implying $\Delta \tilde{x}=\epsilon^{-2}\Delta x={\cal
233: O}(\epsilon^{-1})$, which is still large relative to the critical
234: wavelength of the traveling waves.
235:
236: We consider the forcing to be small, $\nu = {\cal O}(\epsilon)$, so that the
237: corresponding amplitude $B$ of the left-traveling wave that is excited by
238: the forcing is of the
239: same order in $\epsilon$. The amplitudes and the parameters $\mu$ and
240: $\nu$ are expanded as \typeout{DON'T FORGET TO INCLUDE THIS
241: ARRAY}
242: \bea
243: %\begin{array}{rclrcl}
244: A = A_0 + \epsilon A_1 + \cdots, && \hspace{.5in} B = \epsilon B_1 +
245: \cdots,\label{e:exp1}\\
246: \mu = \mu_c + \epsilon^2 \mu_2 +\cdots, && \hspace{.5in} \nu = \epsilon \nu_1
247: + \cdots.\label{e:exp2}
248: %\end{array}
249: \eea
250: where $\mu_c = -3 c^2/16p$ is the value of the control parameter
251: at which a single, non-interacting front is stationary. For $\mu
252: > \mu_c$ the nonlinear convective state invades the basic state.
253: \typeout{The diffusion scales as $d = \epsilon^2 d_2$ and t} In
254: the following derivation we go into a reference frame moving with
255: the group velocity $s$. The positions $x_R$ and $x_L$ of the right
256: and left fronts evolve then on a slow time scale, $T =
257: \epsilon^3t$.
258:
259: Inserting the expansions (\ref{e:exp1}) and (\ref{e:exp2}) into
260: equations (\ref{e:ampA}) and (\ref{e:ampB}) we obtain at leading
261: order equations for
262: $A$ and $B$ in the outer regions I, III, and V,
263: \bea
264: 0 & = & \mu_c A_0 +c A_0^3 - pA_0^5,
265: \label{e:outerA}\\
266: 0 & = & 2 s \partial_x B_1 + \mu_c B_1 +\nu_1 A_0 - g A_0^2 B_1
267: - u A_0^4 B_1 . \label{e:outerB}
268: \eea
269: Solving equation (\ref{e:outerA}) results in $A_0 = 0$ in regions I and V and
270: $A_0^2 = A_c^2 \equiv 3 c/4p $ in region III. The corresponding solution to
271: (\ref{e:outerB}) is
272: \be B_1^j(x) =
273: \frac{\nu_1}{\alpha} A_0^j + K^j e^{\frac{\alpha^j}{2s}x},
274: \label{e:B1}
275: \ee
276: where $j$ corresponds to the regions I, III, and V and $\alpha^j = -\mu_c + g
277: (A_0^j)^2 + u (A_0^j)^4$.
278:
279: In the inner regions II and IV, the solutions vary on a fast space scale
280: $x/\epsilon$ which is captured by introducing the inner coordinates $\eta =
281: (x-x_L)/\epsilon$ and $\eta = (x_R - x)/\epsilon$, respectively. The spatial
282: derivative then transforms as $\partial_x \rightarrow \pm
283: \partial_\eta/\epsilon$. The resulting leading-order equations for $A$ and $B$
284: are
285: \bea 0 & = & d_2 \partial_{\eta\eta} A_0 + \mu_c A_0 +c A_0^3 - pA_0^5,
286: \label{e:innerA0}\\
287: 0 & = & \pm 2 s \partial_\eta B_1 . \label{e:innerB1}
288: \eea
289: From (\ref{e:innerA0}) one obtains the left and right front
290: solution \be A_0(\eta) = A_c
291: \sqrt{\frac{1}{2}\left[1+\tanh{\left(\frac{\eta}{\xi}\right)}\right]},
292: \;\;\;\;\;\; \xi = \frac{4}{c} \sqrt{\frac{p d_2}{3}}, \ee where
293: $A_c^2$ and $\eta$ are defined above. Equation (\ref{e:innerB1})
294: implies that $B_1$ does not depend on the fast space variable
295: $\eta$, i.e. $B_1 = B_c^{I,IV}$ is constant in regions II and IV.
296: At ${\cal O}(\epsilon)$, no inhomogeneity arises in the equation
297: for $A_1$, which is therefore taken to be identically $0$. But
298: at ${\cal O}(\epsilon^2)$ the following equation for
299: $A_2$ is obtained:
300: \be
301: {\cal L}A_2 = \mp\frac{dx_{L,R}}{dT} \partial_\eta A_0
302: - \mu_2 A_0 + gB_1^2 A_0 + rA_0^3 B_1^2 - \nu_1 B_1, \label{e:innerA2}
303: \ee
304: where ${\cal L} = d_2 \partial_{\eta\eta} +\mu_c +3cA_0^2 - 5pA_0^4$ is the
305: linearized operator. It is singular and has the zero-eigenmode
306: $\partial_\eta A_0$, which leads to a solvability condition for equation
307: (\ref{e:innerA2}). The result of projecting equation (\ref{e:innerA2}) onto the
308: zero-eigenmode determines the velocity of the fronts in regions II and IV,
309:
310: \be
311: \pm\frac{d x_{L,R}}{dT} = \left[-2 \mu_c + (2 g + A_c^2 r)
312: B_c^{II,IV^2}- \frac{4 \nu_1 B_c^{II,IV}}{A_c}\right]\xi \label{e:frontvel}
313: \ee
314: with $B_c^{II,IV}$ yet undetermined.
315:
316: Since $B$ is generated by $A$, we consider the case where $B=0$
317: ahead of the pulse (i.e. for a right-traveling pulse region V where
318: $A\equiv 0$). This implies that $K^V = 0$ from equation
319: (\ref{e:B1}). Now matching the inner and outer solutions for $B$
320: at the left and right positions ($x_L$ and $x_R$) of the fronts,
321: one obtains the constant values $B_c^{II} = (\nu_1 A_c/\alpha)
322: \left[1-\exp{(-\alpha L /2s)}\right]$ and $B_c^{IV} = 0$. The
323: constants
324: $K^I$ and $K^{III}$ are nonzero and we see from equation
325: (\ref{e:B1}) that $B$ grows spatially to the left in region III
326: and approaches the limiting value $\nu_1 A_c/\alpha$. Then, in
327: region I where the pulse has passed and $A$ again equals $0$, $B$
328: decays exponentially to zero. The individual front velocities are
329: given by substituting the values of $B_c^{II,IV}$ into the
330: expressions given in~(\ref{e:frontvel})
331: \bea
332: \frac{d x_{L}}{dT} & = & \left[-2 (\mu - \mu_c)
333: + \frac{\nu^2(2 g + A_c^2r)A_c^2}{\alpha^2}
334: - \frac{4 \nu_1^2}{\alpha}\right]\xi , \label{e:Lvel} \\
335: \frac{d x_{R}}{dT} & = & +2 (\mu - \mu_c)\xi.
336: \label{e:Rvel}
337: \eea
338: Combining these results yields the following equations describing
339: the evolution of the pulse length $L = x_R - x_L$ and the velocity
340: of the pulse relative to a frame moving with the group velocity
341: $s$ in terms of a ``center of mass" coordinate $M = (x_R+x_L)/2$,
342: \bea
343: \frac{dL}{dT} & = & k_1(\mu-\mu_c) + k_2 \nu^2 (1-e^{-\frac{\alpha}{2s}L})
344: -k_3 \nu^2(1-e^{-\frac{\alpha}{2s}L})^2, \label{e:Ldot} \\
345: \frac{dM}{dT} & = & \frac{1}{2}\left [-k_2 \nu^2 (1-e^{-\frac{\alpha}{2s}L})
346: +k_3 \nu^2(1-e^{-\frac{\alpha}{2s}L})^2\right ],
347: \label{e:Mdot}
348: \eea
349: where $k_1 = 4 \xi$, $k_2 = 4\xi/\alpha,$ and $k_3 =
350: [(2g+A_c^2r)A_c^2 \xi]/\alpha^2$. While both $k_1 \mbox{ and }
351: k_2$ are always positive, $k_3$ may be either positive or
352: negative. As will be seen in the next section, the sign of $k_3$
353: determines whether stable pulse solutions may exist. The
354: interaction length is given by $2s/\alpha$.
355:
356: \section{Discussion of Front Equations} \label{sec:discussion}
357:
358: The possible pulse solutions of~(\ref{e:Ldot}) and (\ref{e:Mdot})
359: are more easily discussed in terms of the quantity $\Lambda \equiv
360: \left[1-\exp{(-\alpha L /2s)}\right]$ which monotonically
361: increases from zero to one as $L$ increases from zero to infinity.
362: Equation~(\ref{e:Ldot}) is then given by
363: \be
364: \frac{1}{1-\Lambda}\cdot \frac{d\Lambda}{dT} = f(\Lambda) \equiv
365: k_1(\mu-\mu_c) + k_2\nu^2\Lambda -k_3\nu^2\Lambda^2.
366: \label{e:flambda}
367: \ee
368: Figure~\ref{fig:dtLambda} depicts $f(\Lambda)$ for the two cases
369: $\mu>\mu_c$ and $\mu<\mu_c$. For $k_3>0$ the parabola opens
370: downward and the maximum occurs at $\Lambda = k_2/2k_3$,
371: independent of forcing strength $\nu$. Fixed points $\Lambda_0$ are
372: indicated where $f(\Lambda) = 0$:
373: \be
374: \Lambda_0 = (1-e^{-\frac{\alpha}{2s}L_0})
375: \equiv \frac{k_2 \pm \sqrt{k_2^2 +\frac{4(\mu-\mu_c)k_1 k_3}{\nu^2}}}{2k_3}
376: \label{e:Lam0}
377: \ee
378:
379: Pulses with $\Lambda =
380: \Lambda_0$ are linearly stable if $f'(\Lambda_0) < 0$. If $k_3 < 0$, the
381: parabola is opening upward with the minimum at $\Lambda = k_2/2k_3
382: < 0$ so that $f'(\Lambda) >0$ for all values of $\Lambda
383: > 0$. Hence for a stable pulse to exist it is necessary that $k_3>0$ and in this
384: case corresponds to the upper branch of solutions~(\ref{e:Lam0}).
385: More precisely, stable pulses exist as long as $k_3>k_2/2$ with their length
386: diverging for $k_3 \rightarrow k_2/2$. Unless stated otherwise the discussion of the
387: front interaction will focus on the regime $0<k_2/2k_3<1$ where a
388: stable branch exists.
389:
390: From the expression~(\ref{e:Lam0}) and the parabola in
391: Figure~\ref{fig:dtLambda}, one can easily see the effect of
392: forcing on the stable pulse length.
393: As the forcing $\nu$ increases, $f(\Lambda = 0) =
394: f(\Lambda = k_2/k_3)
395: = k_1(\mu-\mu_c)$ remain fixed while the parabola steepens (see
396: Figure~\ref{fig:dtLambda}). Thus for $\mu
397: > \mu_c$ the stable pulse length is larger than $L_c$
398: corresponding to $\Lambda_c \equiv k_2/k_3$, but approaches
399: $L_c$ as forcing increases
400: (Figure~\ref{fig:dtLambda}a). Conversely, for $\mu < \mu_c$ the
401: pulse length increases to $L_c$ with increasing $\nu$
402: (Figure~\ref{fig:dtLambda}b). As forcing $\nu$ decreases for
403: $\mu >\mu_c$, the pulse length increases and eventually diverges to infinity.
404: In contrast, for $\mu<\mu_c$ decreasing forcing results in the
405: pulse length decreasing until the pulse is destroyed in a
406: saddle-node bifurcation.
407:
408: Figure~\ref{fig:Lvsb} shows both the analytical
409: results for the steady state solutions of equation~(\ref{e:Ldot})
410: and numerical results obtained by integrating the full amplitude
411: equations~(\ref{e:ampA}) and (\ref{e:ampB}). A linearized
412: Crank-Nicholson scheme was used to solve the coupled equations and
413: the pulse lengths were measured at half-amplitude. The pulse
414: length is plotted as a function of forcing strength for several
415: values of the control parameter
416: $\mu$ confirming the expected behavior. The top figure is for
417: group velocity $s = 20.0$ and the bottom figure for $s = 1.7$.
418: Here we see that although the analytical result no longer agrees
419: quantitatively for smaller
420: $s$, it still describes the qualitative behavior of the pulse
421: length as the control parameters are varied. This dependence on
422: the group velocity will be discussed at the end of this section.
423:
424: A numerical control technique has been employed to obtain the
425: unstable pulse solutions indicated by the long dashed curves in
426: Figure~\ref{fig:Lvsb}. Since the analysis leads to a single
427: ordinary differential equation (\ref{e:Ldot}) describing the
428: evolution of a pulse, the dynamics of the pulse length are
429: essentially restricted to a one-dimensional manifold. The control
430: technique is therefore relatively straight-forward. Pulse lengths
431: are measured after evolving equations~(\ref{e:ampA}) and
432: (\ref{e:ampB}) over a short time interval and compared with the
433: measurements taken at the previous time to obtain the direction
434: and rate of growth. This information is then used along with the
435: desired pulse length to adjust the control parameter accordingly.
436: This process is repeated until a steady-state pulse with the
437: specified length is obtained. In Figure~\ref{fig:Lvsb}, the
438: parameter adjusted to control the length is the forcing strength
439: $\nu$ while all other parameters remain fixed. The same technique
440: is also used for varying the control parameter $\mu$ (cf.
441: Figures~\ref{fig:hole}b, \ref{fig:holec2.58}, and
442: \ref{fig:nummoddisp}).
443:
444: The different regimes can be understood by looking at the individual
445: interaction terms in equation (\ref{e:Ldot}) and their origins from
446: equation (\ref{e:ampA}). The first term in (\ref{e:Ldot}) is a measure of
447: how far the control parameter $\mu$ is from the critical value $\mu_c$
448: where, in the absence of forcing, an isolated front is stationary. It
449: provides a ``pressure" which is directed outward for $\mu>\mu_c$
450: and which has to be balanced by the interaction terms. The second
451: and third terms describe the interaction between fronts due to forcing.
452: The second term arises from the linear coupling between $A$ and
453: $B$ introduced by the forcing in equation (\ref{e:ampA}) through
454: which $B$ excites $A$. It therefore enhances the invasion of the
455: nonlinear state into the linear state, which corresponds to a repulsive
456: interaction between the leading and the trailing front. The third term
457: stems from the nonlinear coupling which, when $k_3>0$, suppresses
458: $A$ and therefore weakens the invasion, implying attraction between
459: the fronts.
460:
461: The effect of forcing on a pulse depends on the distance between
462: the fronts. Since the pulse is traveling to the right, the
463: amplitude $B$ is growing spatially to the left. For short pulses,
464: therefore, $B$ remains small and the linear coupling term
465: dominates the interaction implying a repulsive interaction. Thus, for
466: $\mu<\mu_c$ the inward ``pressure" can be balanced by a repulsive interaction
467: if the pulses are sufficiently short. With increasing pulse lengths, $B$
468: reaches larger values at the trailing front and the nonlinear
469: coupling term gains importance. Thus, in contrast to
470: many other localization mechanisms, the forcing can induce an
471: {\it attractive} interaction that grows with distance. It is able to balance the outward
472: ``pressure" for $\mu>\mu_c$. In this regime the pulses become
473: shorter with increased forcing. Figure~\ref{fig:ABsoln} shows two
474: stable pulse solutions obtained by numerically integrating
475: equations (\ref{e:ampA}) and (\ref{e:ampB}). The control
476: parameter $\mu = -1.240$ for the longer pulse and $\mu=-1.250$ for
477: the shorter pulse. All other parameters are the same for both
478: pulses. Note that the forcing $\nu$ is the same for both
479: pulses, yet the amplitude
480: $B$ has not saturated for the shorter pulse.
481:
482: From equations (\ref{e:Ldot}) and (\ref{e:Mdot}) we see that when
483: $dL/dT\equiv 0$ for a steady pulse $L_0$, then $dM/dT =
484: k_1(\mu-\mu_c)/2$. Thus the pulse velocity in the moving frame is
485: given by the invasion speed and depends on $\mu$. By contrast, in
486: dispersively stable pulses the velocity depends on the control
487: parameter only through the nonlinear gradient terms
488: \cite{MaNe90,HaPo91}. Strikingly, in the asymptotic calculation
489: leading to (\ref{e:Mdot}) the pulse velocity does not depend on
490: the forcing $\nu$. Figure~\ref{fig:vel}a shows that the linear
491: dependence on $\mu$ is in good agreement with this analytical
492: result, but that the velocity does also depend on forcing $\nu$.
493: We suggest that the discrepancy may be explained by the effect of
494: the excited counter-propagating wave on the leading front at
495: $x_R$. Since in the weakly nonlinear regime diffusion is much
496: weaker than advection (for group velocities of ${\cal O}(1)$),
497: $B_c = 0$ in region
498: IV, which implies that forcing has no affect on the velocity of
499: the leading front (equation \ref{e:frontvel}). However, non-zero
500: $B$ within this inner region will slightly alter the velocity of
501: the leading front and consequently that of the pulse as a function
502: of forcing. This will also impact the length of the pulse. For the
503: parameters used in Figure~\ref{fig:ABsoln}, note that $B$ varies
504: slowly in region II whereas it varies almost as fast as $A$ in
505: region IV suggesting that the missing contribution is more
506: prevalent at the leading front than at the trailing one.
507: Figure~\ref{fig:vel}b shows single front velocities for both the
508: leading and trailing front. The curves are the analytical results
509: obtained from (\ref{e:frontvel}) for single fronts ($L \rightarrow
510: \infty$) and the symbols indicate numerical results. As expected,
511: the velocity of the trailing front is well described by our
512: analysis, but the velocity of the leading front does depend
513: slightly on the forcing. The leading-front velocity then
514: dictates the velocity of the pulse. For larger group velocity $s$,
515: the interaction length
516: $2s/\alpha$ increases and the separation of the fast and slow spatial scales at
517: the positions of the fronts becomes more distinct, as shown in
518: Figure~\ref{fig:solnvarys}. Thus we expect and the numerical
519: results confirm (Figure~\ref{fig:Lvvarys}) that the agreement with
520: analytical results (\ref{e:Ldot}) and (\ref{e:Mdot}) for pulse
521: length and velocity improves with increasing group velocity $s$.
522: For small forcing $\nu$ the relative error of the velocity is on
523: the order of the numerical accuracy. We note that the qualitative
524: behavior of the pulse length is consistent even for smaller group
525: velocity.
526:
527: \section{Holes and Multiple Pulses}
528: \label{sec:holes}
529:
530: The analysis from section \ref{sec:derivation} can be applied to other
531: front configurations such as hole states and multiple pulses. A hole
532: consists of a localized region in which the amplitude of the pattern is
533: very small and which is surrounded by the nonzero traveling-wave
534: amplitude. In contrast to the hole-type solutions found in the
535: Ginzburg-Landau equation \cite{LeFa97,He98}, which are
536: qualitatively different objects than pulses, the holes to be discussed
537: here are similar to pulses in that they are also compound objects
538: made of two fronts connecting the basic state with the nonlinear
539: state. As with the pulses, the central equation for their description is
540: an evolution equation for the length $L_h$ of the hole. It is given by
541: \be
542: \frac{dL_h}{dT} = -k_1(\mu-\mu_c) - k_2 \nu^2 (1+e^{-\frac{|\mu_c|}{2s}L_h})
543: +k_3 \nu^2(1+e^{-\frac{|\mu_c|}{s}L_h}), \label{e:Lhdot}
544: \ee
545: where $k_1, k_2$, and $k_3$ are defined as before and a stable hole may be
546: possible when $k_3 >0$. Note that the interaction length for holes is now
547: given by $2s/|\mu_c|$ which is longer than the interaction length $2s/\alpha$
548: for pulses. Solving $dL_h/dT = 0$ again yields two possible solutions
549: $L_h^\pm$, with the longer hole unstable and the shorter hole stable.
550: In contrast with the pulses, stable holes thus exist only over a
551: finite range of shorter lengths. The RHS is quadratic in
552: $\Lambda_h = \exp(-|\mu_c| L_h/2s)$, describing a parabola opening
553: upward. Although varying forcing now results not only in
554: stretching the parabola, but also in shifting it vertically, the
555: variations in hole length again depends on the sign of the first
556: term in (\ref{e:Lhdot}). When
557: $\mu<\mu_c$, increasing forcing causes stable holes to get shorter, while
558: for $\mu>\mu_c$ the stable hole length will increase. Although the tendency of
559: a hole to grow or shrink with increased forcing depends only on the sign of
560: $\mu-\mu_c$, the limiting behavior is different depending on the relative sizes
561: of $k_2$ and $k_3$. If $k_3<k_2$ then holes exist only for $\mu<\mu_c$ and as
562: $\nu$ increases, the hole length goes to zero. If
563: $k_3>k_2/2(\sqrt{2}-1)\approx 1.2k_2$, holes exist only for $\mu>\mu_c$ and as
564: $\nu$ increases the stable hole length grows and eventually disappears in a
565: saddle-node bifurcation with the unstable hole. Finally, for the intermediate
566: values of $k_3$, holes exist for values of $\mu$ both above and below $\mu_c$.
567: In this case, as $\nu\rightarrow \infty$, the hole length approaches the
568: limiting length determined when $\mu=\mu_c$.
569:
570: Figure~\ref{fig:hole}a,b shows a stable numerical hole solution and
571: the control parameter $\mu$ as a function of the hole length for
572: different values of the forcing. Stable and unstable solutions
573: are indicated by solid and open symbols, respectively. Again, the
574: unstable holes are obtained by means of a numerical control
575: technique. First we note that according to (\ref{e:Lhdot}), the
576: minimum of these curves should all be at the same value of $L_h$,
577: but our numerical results show the minimum shifted to the right as
578: $\nu$ increases. The analysis requires that $A$ vanish in the
579: hole region, but the presence of $B$ in this region actually
580: generates small nonzero $A$, which in turn generates $B$. Hence,
581: the actual value of $B$ at the trailing front is greater than
582: predicted. This suppresses $A$ there and the trailing front slows
583: down, leading to longer pulses and a shift of the minimum of the
584: curves to the right as forcing $\nu$ increases. If the parameters
585: are such that the control parameter $\mu$ can be taken smaller,
586: the basic state is more strongly damped. Hence, within the hole
587: region $A$ is smaller and the shift of the curves is less
588: pronounced as seen in Figure~\ref{fig:holec2.58}. Here $c=2.58$
589: so that $\mu_c \sim -1.248$ as compared to $c=1.8$ in
590: Figure~\ref{fig:hole} where $\mu_c \sim -0.608$.
591:
592: %Figure~\ref{fig:shiftvsb} shows the dependence of this shift on forcing
593: %strength $\nu$ and confirms that it is a higher-order correction. ??comment
594: %about the shorter unstable pulse branch ??
595:
596: Arrays of multiple fronts can be combined to form multiple
597: pulses. For a two-pulse configuration, there are four inner front
598: regions which match to five outer regions resulting in evolution
599: equations for the distance $L_2$ between the pulses as well as the widths
600: $L_1$ and $L_3$ of the leading and the trailing pulse, respectively.
601: This is to be contrasted with the description of multi-pulse solutions in
602: the strongly dispersive case (without forcing), where the pulse widths can be
603: adiabiatically eliminated in favor of the
604: the distance and the phase difference between the two individual
605: pulses \cite{AkAn97}. The three evolution equations for $L_{1,2,3}$ are given by
606: \begin{eqnarray}
607: \frac{dL_1}{dT} & = & k_1(\mu-\mu_c) + k_2\nu^2\Lambda_1
608: -k_3\nu^2\Lambda_1^2, \label{e:dtL1}\\
609: %= f(\Lambda_1), \\
610: \frac{dL_2}{dT} & = & -k_1(\mu-\mu_c)
611: - k_2 \nu^2 \Lambda_1(1+\Lambda_2)
612: +k_3 \nu^2 \Lambda_1^2(1+\Lambda_2^2), \label{e:dtL2}\\
613: %= f_2(\Lambda_1,\Lambda_2), \\
614: \frac{dL_3}{dT} & = & k_1(\mu-\mu_c) + k_2\nu^2 \left\{\Lambda_1\Lambda_2
615: + \left[1+\Lambda_3(\Lambda_1\Lambda_2 - 1) \right] \right\}
616: \nonumber \\
617: && \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;-k_3 \nu^2 \left\{\Lambda_1^2\Lambda_2^2
618: + \left[1+\Lambda_3(\Lambda_1\Lambda_2 - 1) \right]^2 \right\},
619: \label{e:dtL3}
620: %= f_3(\Lambda_1,\Lambda_2,\Lambda_3).
621: \end{eqnarray}
622: where the $\Lambda_i$ are defined in terms of $L_i$ as follows:
623: $\Lambda_1 = 1-\exp(-\alpha L_1/2s), \Lambda_2 = \exp(\mu_c
624: L_2/2s)$, and $\Lambda_3 = \exp(-\alpha L_3/2s)$. Since equation
625: (\ref{e:dtL1}) for $L_1$ is the same as equation (\ref{e:Ldot}) which
626: describes a single pulse, the leading pulse length is unaffected by
627: the trailing pulse. But the trailing pulse length depends on both the
628: length of the leading pulse and the distance between the pulses and
629: is typically shorter than the leading pulse. Solving equations
630: (\ref{e:dtL1}) and (\ref{e:dtL3}) for the fixed points $\Lambda_{10},
631: \Lambda_{20}, \Lambda_{30}$, it is found that $\Lambda_{10}\cdot
632: \Lambda_{20} = k_2/k_3$ and $\Lambda_{30} =
633: k_3\cdot(1-\Lambda_{10}/(k_3-k_2)$. Since $L_1$ increases with
634: increasing $\Lambda_1$, and $L_2$ and $L_3$ increase with
635: decreasing $\Lambda_2$ and $\Lambda_3$, this suggests that all
636: three lengths will either increase or decrease as the control
637: parameters $\mu$ and $\nu$ are varied. The eigenvalues $\sigma_i$
638: obtained from linearizing equations (\ref{e:dtL1}) and (\ref{e:dtL3})
639: indicate that $\sigma_1 = \sigma_3$ and a two-pulse solution may be
640: stable when $k_3$ is positive. A stable two-pulse solution is
641: therefore expected to exist and be stable whenever a single pulse
642: exists. However, since the trailing pulse is narrower than the leading
643: pulse, it may become too short and collapse - as it merges in a
644: saddle-node bifurcation with the shorter unstable pulse - for
645: parameter values where the single pulse is still stable. Numerically,
646: we observe that as the control parameter $\mu$ is decreased all
647: three lengths get shorter and the trailing pulse eventually collapses to
648: zero. Figure~\ref{fig:twopulse} shows a stable two-pulse solution
649: superimposed over a single pulse solution confirming that the leading
650: pulse length is unaffected by the trailing pulse.
651:
652: \section{Dispersion Effects}\label{sec:disp}
653:
654: Waves generally have both linear and nonlinear dispersion. Hence,
655: the coefficients and the amplitudes in equations (\ref{e:ampA})
656: and (\ref{e:ampB}) are in general complex. In
657: \cite{MaNe90,HaPo91}, it is shown that for weak dispersion the
658: interaction between fronts leads to the following type of
659: evolution equation for the length of a pulse:
660:
661: \be \frac{dL}{dt} = k_1(\mu-\hat{\mu}_c) - k_4 e^{-L/\xi} + \frac{k_5}{L}.
662: \label{e:dispLdot} \ee
663: The coefficients $k_1$ and $k_4$ are positive and
664: contain only the real part of the original coefficients. The
665: first term is similar to equation (\ref{e:Ldot}) where
666: $\hat{\mu}_c$ is the value of the control parameter at which a
667: single, isolated front is stationary. Due to the dispersive terms,
668: $\hat{\mu_c}$ includes a correction compared to $\mu_c$.
669: The second term arises as a
670: result of the overlap of the fronts in the convective amplitude.
671: The term involving $k_5$ contains the imaginary parts of the
672: coefficients, so that this term represents the interaction due to
673: dispersion. When $k_5 > 0$, dispersion provides a repulsive
674: interaction and can lead to the existence of stable pulses. When
675: $\mu<\hat{\mu}_c$ two pulse solutions exist with the longer one
676: being stable.
677:
678: We now consider the combined effects of forcing and
679: dispersion. Of particular interest is the question
680: whether periodic forcing can stabilize or
681: destabilize pulses obtained in the purely dispersive regime. The
682: task of deriving front equations including both dispersion and
683: forcing seems formidable. It is suggested and validated by the
684: numerical simulations below that the relevant aspects of both
685: features may be modeled by simply adding the two contributions. This
686: leads to an equation of the following form for pulses of length
687: $L$:
688: \be
689: \frac{dL}{dT} = k_1(\mu-\hat{\mu}_c) + k_2 \nu^2 (1-e^{-\frac{\alpha}{2s}L})
690: -k_3 \nu^2(1-e^{-\frac{\alpha}{2s}L})^2
691: - k_4 e^{-L/\xi} + \frac{k_5}{L}. \label{e:mdLdot}
692: \ee
693:
694: If both dispersion and forcing independently result in a stable pulse,
695: their combined contribution merely enhances the stability of the
696: pulse. The case of competing contributions is more interesting.
697: Figure~\ref{fig:dispmod} is a plot of the control parameter $\mu$ as a
698: function of steady-state pulse lengths $L$ from
699: equation~(\ref{e:mdLdot}). The dashed curve is for dispersion in the
700: absence of forcing ($\nu=0$), whereas the solid and dotted curves
701: indicate the addition of forcing. For a given value of the control
702: parameter indicated by the thin horizontal line stable equilibrium
703: solutions (positive slope) are given by solid circles while open circles indicate unstable
704: solutions (negative slope). Plotted are both cases, a) when weak
705: dispersion leads to a stable pulse, $k_5>0$, and b) when it does
706: not, $k_5<0$. If forcing does not stabilize a pulse ($k_2/2k_3>1$),
707: then increasing forcing pushes the stable branch of solutions
708: downward. There is a competition between the two interactions and
709: four solution branches may exist (Figure~\ref{fig:dispmod}a inset).
710: Eventually, for sufficiently large forcing $\nu$ the stable pulse
711: disappears at infinity, leaving only the unstable pulse solution.
712: Similarly, when dispersion does not stabilize the pulse, increasing
713: forcing with $k_2/2k_3<1$ can eventually lead to a stable pulse
714: branch (Figure~\ref{fig:dispmod}b).
715:
716: For large $L$, equation~(\ref{e:mdLdot}) is dominated by the dispersive
717: interaction, which decays only like $1/L$,
718: suggesting that the original, dispersive behavior is recovered for
719: large lengths $L$. If $k_2/2k_3 > 1$ the competition can lead to two
720: additional pulses, one unstable and one stable, for intermediate values of
721: forcing $\nu$ (cf. inset of Fig.~\ref{fig:dispmod}a). For larger forcing, only
722: one unstable pulse and one long, stable pulse remain. Note that for fixed
723: $\mu$ and increasing $\nu$ the stable pulse will still disappear at infinity
724: since the branch is being pushed downward. If the forcing generates a stable
725: pulse, the $1/L$-behavior of the dispersive interaction suggests the existence
726: of a long, third, unstable pulse (Fig.~\ref{fig:dispmod}b). Note that
727: according to the analysis of the dispersive interaction in \cite{MaNe90}, which
728: was confirmed numerically in \cite{RiRa95}, the power-law behavior continues
729: only up to a maximal length $L_{max}$, beyond which the dispersive interaction
730: decays rapidly. The maximal length $L_{max}$ decreases with increasing
731: dispersion. If forcing dominates the interaction for lengths up to $L_{max}$,
732: then the long-length dispersively dominated behavior is no longer expected for
733: either case depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:dispmod}. But it should be present for
734: weaker forcing or shorter interaction length.
735:
736: Figures~\ref{fig:nummoddisp} show numerical results that confirm
737: the expected pulse behavior based on equation~(\ref{e:mdLdot}).
738: Plotted are the numerically obtained pulse lengths as a function
739: of the control parameter $\mu$. Stable pulse solutions are
740: indicated by solid symbols and unstable solutions by open
741: symbols. Figures~\ref{fig:nummoddisp}a,b show that increased
742: forcing may destroy a dispersively stable pulse. For forcing
743: strength
744: $\nu=0.2$, the forcing is not sufficient to eliminate the stable
745: pulse and both solution branches are still present. The inset
746: shows an intermediate value of $\nu=0.4$ where four solution
747: branches exist and Figure~\ref{fig:nummoddisp}b shows the pulse
748: lengths for stronger forcing $\nu=0.5$, where only the unstable
749: branch remains. Figures~\ref{fig:nummoddisp}c,d depict the
750: creation of a stable pulse branch by increasing forcing strength.
751: When $\nu=0.1$ forcing leads to a stable branch, but for longer
752: lengths the dispersion dominates and a third, unstable pulse
753: exists. However, for $\nu = 0.2$ the forcing succeeds in
754: dominating the interaction beyond $L_{max}$ so that the branch
755: remains stable.
756:
757: \section{Conclusions}
758: \label{sec:conclusion}
759:
760: In this paper we have investigated the effect of external resonant
761: forcing on the interaction of fronts connecting the stable basic
762: with a stable nonlinear traveling-wave state that arises
763: in a subcritical bifurcation.
764: Localized structures were described analytically as bound pairs of
765: fronts. The temporal forcing excites the oppositely traveling
766: wave and provides an additional mode that is sufficient to
767: localize structures. Since the forcing constitutes an externally controlled
768: parameter, pulses of tunable length can be obtained via this new
769: localization mechanism. Forcing stabilizes pulses through either a
770: repulsive or an {\em attractive} interaction between the fronts
771: depending on the pulse length. This is in contrast to other
772: localization mechanisms in which stable pulses arise only for a
773: repulsive interaction \cite{MaNe90,HaPo91,HeRi95}. Multiple
774: pulses with different, but fixed, lengths and holes are also
775: obtained. In addition, the combined effect of temporal forcing and
776: dispersion has been investigated. With the inclusion of weak
777: dispersion, the interaction between fronts can be described qualitatively
778: by a single equation combining the two interaction
779: terms~(\ref{e:mdLdot}). It was found that in the dispersive
780: regime forcing can lead to the creation of new pulses or the
781: destruction of pulses depending on system parameters. The
782: competition between the two interactions determines the number and
783: stability of pulses observed.
784:
785: In the regimes investigated here no complex dynamics of the individual pulses
786: have been found. It is known, however, that both dispersively stabilized pulses
787: as well as pulses stabilized by an advected mode can undergo transitions to
788: chaotic dynamics (e.g. \cite{DeBr94,HeRi97,SoAk00}).
789:
790: Localized traveling waves in the absence of resonant forcing have
791: been observed experimentally in particular in binary-mixture convection and
792: electroconvection in nematic liquid crystals. Depending on
793: parameters, the localization of pulses in binary-mixture
794: convection is understood to be due to dispersion and to the
795: coupling to a slowly decaying, advected concentration mode. Since
796: the advection depends on the direction of propagation of the wave,
797: an interesting question is how the counterpropagating wave excited
798: by a resonant forcing will affect the pulses that are stabilized
799: by the concentration mode and how the two localization mechanisms
800: interact. The origin of the localization of the worms in
801: electroconvection is still being investigated. A Ginzburg-Landau
802: model that includes a coupling to a weakly damped mode similar to
803: that in the case of binary-mixture convection has been proposed
804: \cite{RiGr98}. By probing the response of the worms to temporal
805: forcing, insight may be gained into the relevance of an advected
806: mode in the worms.
807:
808: We would like to acknowledge discussions with J. Vi\~{n}als. This work has been
809: supported by the Engineering Research Program of the Office of Basic
810: Engineering Science at the Department of Energy under grant DE-FG02-92ER14303
811: and the National Science Foundation under grant DMS-9804673.
812:
813: \begin{figure}[ht]
814: \centerline{\epsfxsize=3.3in{\epsfbox{figures/frontnew.eps}}
815: }
816: \caption{Sketch of a pulse traveling to the right. $A$ is the amplitude of
817: the right-traveling wave. Temporal forcing excites the left-traveling wave $B$,
818: which grows spatially to the left reaching a maximum at the trailing front,
819: behind which it decays exponentially.
820: }
821: \label{fig:front}
822: \end{figure}
823:
824: \begin{figure}[ht]
825: \centerline{\epsfxsize=2.4in{\epsfbox{figures/mugreatbw.eps}}\hspace{.6in}
826: \epsfxsize=2.4in{\epsfbox{figures/mulessbw.eps}}
827: }
828: \caption{Sketch of $f(\Lambda) \equiv k_1(\mu-\mu_c) + k_2\nu^2\Lambda
829: -k_3\nu^2\Lambda^2$ for $k_3>0$. Stable (unstable) fixed points
830: are indicated by solid (open) circles. Varying forcing changes the steepness
831: of the parabola and the height of the maximum located at $\Lambda = k_2/2k_3$.
832: Increasing forcing $\nu$ decreases the stable pulse length for (a) $\mu >
833: \mu_c$ and increases the stable pulse length for (b) $\mu < \mu_c$.
834: }
835: \label{fig:dtLambda}
836: \end{figure}
837:
838: \begin{figure}[ht]
839: \centerline{\epsfxsize=4.in{\epsfbox{figures/Lvsbs20.bps}}}
840: \vspace{.2in}
841: \centerline{\epsfxsize=4.in{\epsfbox{figures/Lvsb.bps}}}
842: \caption[Dependence of pulse length $L$ on the forcing strength
843: $\nu$]{Dependence of pulse length $L$ on the forcing strength
844: $\nu$. The symbols indicate the numerical results and the curves
845: are obtained from equation (\protect{\ref{e:Lam0}}). The dotted
846: line corresponds to $\mu = \mu_c$. The curves above (below) this
847: line correspond to values of $\mu > \mu_c$ ($\mu<\mu_c$). The
848: dashed curves indicate unstable branches. The group velocity $s
849: = 20 \mbox{ and } 1.7$ in the top and bottom figures, respectively.
850: $\mu = -1.238$ (solid squares), $-1.2475$ (open squares),
851: $-1.248075=\mu_c$ (circles), $-1.2485$ (open triangles), and
852: $-1.250$ (solid triangles). All other parameters are as in
853: Figure~\protect{\ref{fig:ABsoln}}.
854: }
855: \label{fig:Lvsb}
856: \end{figure}
857:
858: \begin{figure}[ht]
859: \centerline{\epsfxsize=3.5in{\epsfbox{figures/ABsolnb2534.bps}}
860: }
861: \caption{Numerically obtained long and short stable pulse
862: solutions, with
863: $\mu> \mu_c$ and $\mu<\mu_c$, respectively. The inset zooms in on
864: the amplitude $B$ only. The parameters are $\nu = 0.2534, s=1.7,
865: d =0.05, c = 2.58, p = 1.0, g = 1.4, r = 4.0$, and $\mu = -1.244$
866: ($\mu = -1.250$) for the long (short) pulse. For these parameters
867: $\mu_c = -1.248075$.
868: }
869: \label{fig:ABsoln}
870: \end{figure}
871:
872: \begin{figure}[ht]
873: \centerline{\epsfxsize=3.0in{\epsfbox{figures/vvsa.bps}}\hspace{.2in}
874: \epsfxsize=3.0in{\epsfbox{figures/vLRpulsevsb.bps}}
875: }
876: \caption{(a) Pulse velocity as a function of $\mu$ for forcing $\nu = 0.3,
877: 0.5$, and $0.7$. The line shown is obtained from the analytical result
878: $v_{pulse} = k_1(\mu-\mu_c)/2 +s$. (b) Velocity dependence on forcing $\nu$.
879: The solid and open symbols indicate the numerically obtained
880: velocities for the trailing and leading fronts, respectively. The
881: curves give the analytical results. Squares are for $\mu =
882: -1.250$ and circles for $\mu = -1.238$. The small symbols show
883: the corresponding numerically obtained pulse velocities. All
884: other parameters are as in Figure~{\protect{\ref{fig:ABsoln}}}.
885: }
886: \label{fig:vel}
887: \end{figure}
888:
889: \begin{figure}[ht]
890: \centerline{\epsfxsize=3.0in{\epsfbox{figures/solnvarysa12485allA.bps}}
891: }
892: \caption{Amplitude $B$ of pulse solutions when $s=1.25, 5.0, 20.0$
893: indicated by the thick dotted, dashed, and solid lines,
894: respectively. The amplitudes $A$ are indicated by thin lines and
895: the leading front in $A$ is indistinguishable between the
896: different velocities. $\mu = -1.2485, \nu = 0.29$ and all other
897: parameters as in Figure~{\protect{\ref{fig:ABsoln}}}.
898: }
899: \label{fig:solnvarys}
900: \end{figure}
901:
902: \begin{figure}[ht]
903: \centerline{\epsfxsize=3.2in{\epsfbox{figures/Lalpvsba12485.bps}}
904: \hspace{.2in}\epsfxsize=3.3in{\epsfbox{figures/velabsrelerra12485.bps}}
905: }
906: \caption{(a) Scaled pulse length and (b) relative error of pulse
907: velocity versus forcing $\nu$ for $s=1.25, 5.0, 20.0$. $\mu =
908: -1.2485$ and all other parameters as in
909: Figure~{\protect{\ref{fig:ABsoln}}}.
910: }
911: \label{fig:Lvvarys}
912: \end{figure}
913:
914: \newpage
915: \begin{figure}[ht]
916: \centerline{\epsfxsize=2.7in{\epsfbox{figures/holeb.bps}}\hspace{.2in}
917: \epsfxsize=3.3in{\epsfbox{figures/avsL.bps}}
918: }
919: \caption{(a) Numerical hole solution for $c = 1.8, \mu = -0.609$,
920: and $\nu = 0.3$. (b) Control parameter $\mu$ as a function of
921: hole length for various values of $\nu$. For $c = 1.8$, $k_3$ is
922: in the regime where holes exist for both $\mu>\mu_c$ and
923: $\mu<\mu_c$. Solid (open) symbols refer to stable (unstable)
924: solutions. All other parameters are as in
925: Figure~{\protect{\ref{fig:ABsoln}}} .
926: }
927: \label{fig:hole}
928: \end{figure}
929:
930: \begin{figure}[ht]
931: \centerline{\epsfxsize=4.0in{\epsfbox{figures/avsLc258.bps}}}
932: \caption[Control parameter $\mu$ as a function of hole
933: length]{Control parameter $\mu$ as a function of hole length for
934: various values of $\nu$. For $c = 2.58$, $k_3$ is in the regime
935: where stable holes exist only for $\mu>\mu_c$. Solid (open)
936: symbols indicate stable (unstable) solutions. All other
937: parameters are as in Figure~{\protect{\ref{fig:ABsoln}}} .
938: }
939: \label{fig:holec2.58}
940: \end{figure}
941:
942: \begin{figure}[ht]
943: \centerline{\epsfxsize=3.5in{\epsfbox{figures/twopulsea1.bps}}
944: }
945: \caption{Two-pulse solution (thick lines) superimposed over a
946: single-pulse solution (thin lines) for $\mu=-1.238, \nu = 0.5$,
947: and all other parameters as in
948: Figure~{\protect{\ref{fig:ABsoln}}}.
949: }
950: \label{fig:twopulse}
951: \end{figure}
952:
953: \newpage
954: \begin{figure}[ht]
955: \centerline{\epsfxsize=4.5in{\epsfbox{figures/modkilldisp.bps}}}
956: \vspace{.2in}
957: \centerline{\epsfxsize=4.5in{\epsfbox{figures/modstabdisp.bps}}
958: }
959: \caption[Pulse lengths for dispersion and added forcing]{Control
960: parameter $\mu$ vs. steady-state pulse lengths of equation
961: (\protect\ref{e:mdLdot}) for dispersion only, $\nu = 0$ (dashed
962: curve), and added forcing, $\nu = 0.5$ (solid curve).
963: The solid circles indicate stable solutions (positive slope)
964: and the open circles unstable ones (negative slope).
965: (a) For $k_5>0$ and $k_2/2k_3>1$ forcing can eventually destroy a stable
966: pulse, $d = 0.01 +0.0i, r = 0.0$. The inset shows the four
967: branches possible for an intermediate value of forcing $\nu =
968: 0.425$. (b) For $k_5<0$ and
969: $k_2/2k_3<1$ increased forcing can lead to stable pulse solutions, $d =
970: 0.01-0.01i, r = 4.0$. All other parameters are the same: $s=1.7, c
971: = 2.45 + 0.2i, p = 1.0, g = 1.4$.
972: }
973: \label{fig:dispmod}
974: \end{figure}
975:
976: \begin{figure}[ht]
977: \centerline{
978: \epsfxsize=2.8in{\epsfbox{figures/modkillb2_4c245.bps}}\hspace{.2in}
979: \epsfxsize=2.8in{\epsfbox{figures/modkillb5c245.bps}}
980: }\vspace{.2in}
981: \centerline{
982: \epsfxsize=2.8in{\epsfbox{figures/modstabb1c245.bps}}\hspace{.2in}
983: \epsfxsize=2.8in{\epsfbox{figures/modstabb2c245.bps}}
984: }
985: \caption[Pulse lengths when forcing and dispersive contributions
986: compete]{The control parameter $\mu$ vs. the pulse length L. Stable
987: (unstable) solutions indicated by solid (open) symbols. Top row
988: (a)-(b) Forcing destroys a dispersively stable pulse ($d = 0.01 +
989: 0.0i$ and $r = 0.0$). Forcing strength $\nu = 0.2$ and $\nu = 0.4$
990: (inset) in (a), and $\nu = 0.5$ in (b). Bottom row (c)-(d) Forcing
991: creates a stable branch ($d = 0.01 - 0.005 i$ and $r = 4.0$). Forcing
992: strength $\nu = 0.1$ in (c) $\nu = 0.2$ in (d). All other parameters
993: are the same: $s=1.7, c = 2.45 + 0.2i, p = 1.0, g = 1.4$. }
994: \label{fig:nummoddisp}
995: \end{figure}
996:
997: %\bibliography{/users/cath/.bibfiles/journal}
998: \bibliography{journal}
999:
1000: \end{document}
1001: