From parabolas to catenaries
Problem
Please be aware that this resource is still in a somewhat draft form.
The shape a heavy rope or chain hangs in is called a catenary. What is the equation of a catenary, and how could we work it out?
There are multiple ways to solve this problem; we’ll explore two of them.
Setting up the problem: Tension in a rope
(If you have not learnt about tension, you can just use the result from this section in the following sections.)
This diagram shows a rope hanging. We have drawn axes so that the rope hangs in the -plane with the -axis vertically upwards and the lowest point of the rope on the -axis.
Here, is the tension at the lowest point of the rope, while is the tension at a point which is at a distance of along the rope from the lowest point. At , the rope makes an angle of with the horizontal.
The rope has weight per unit length.
Prove that .
From now on, we’ll make our life easier by assuming that , so that the equation becomes .
This is a legitimate thing to do since we have not specified a unit for (which is constant for any particular rope) and is a constant for any particular situation, so we could choose a unit for measuring which made .
If you want to be more general, you could still simplify things by writing , so that the equation becomes . But the remainder of this task is tricky enough without this additional complication, so we will stick to the case .
If the rope has the equation , prove that .
An iterative approach
We’ll start by assuming a very simple (wrong) formula for the rope length , use that to work out a first approximation for , and improve it step-by-step.
We will also assume that the rope has a -intercept of .
Step 1
Assume that , that is, assume the weight is evenly distributed horizontally. (This is the case for ropes holding up bridges.)
What is in this case, where ?
Step 2
Now assume that the weight is distributed uniformly along the shape given by the answer to Step 1, that is to say, is now the arc length of .
What is approximately in this case, where ? Work out an answer as a polynomial, valid for small values of , including one term more than in .
(We’re looking for an approximation, so do not try to use any complicated integration techniques here – the most you should have to integrate is a polynomial. See the suggestions if you want one.)
Step 3
Now assume that the weight is distributed uniformly along the shape given by the answer to Step 2, that is to say, is now the arc length of .
What is approximately in this case, where ? Work out an answer as a polynomial, valid for small values of , including one term more than in .
In the limit
- Can you predict ? What about ? And how will the sequence of polynomials , , , … continue further?
- What is the power series, , that this sequence is tending to? What do we call this function?
- Can you prove that this limit function satisfies the equation , where is the arc length of ?
- In the above procedure, what would Step have been? Can you prove that Step would have given the function which you predicted? (See the suggestions for help on this step if you need it.)
- Why do you think we assumed that the curve has a -intercept of ?
A direct approach
Can you solve the equation directly?
More generally, can you solve the equation , where ?
Suggestion
We need to work out the arc length of to find .
But we only want an approximate answer as a polynomial, so how can we approximate the integral for arc length so that what we are integrating (the integrand) is itself a polynomial?
In the limit
- In the above procedure, what would Step have been? Can you prove that Step would have given the function which you predicted?
Proving that Step follows might be tricky to do directly from the polynomial . It might be helpful to consider what you already know about the limit function and its behaviour.
You may find the substitution helpful.
Solution
Setting up the problem: Tension in a rope
Resolving vertically and horizontally on the portion of rope between the lowest point and
, we find:
(The weight of the rope is its length times the weight per unit length .) Rearranging to get and , we can divide to get as required.
From now on, we’ll make our life easier by assuming that , so that the equation becomes .
If the rope has the equation , prove that .
The gradient of the curve at is , so this follows immediately from .
An iterative approach
Step 1
Using , we can integrate to get . Using , we get .
Step 2
The relevant version of the formula for arc length in this context is
We would like a polynomial approximation to this, so we expand the square root using the binomial theorem:
So integrating gives us a formula for : Finally, we can now solve the equation , where , to get We only want one term more than , though, so we get
Step 3
We follow the same procedure as in step 2.
We start by finding
, working up to the term in
:
and since , it follows that giving one term more than for .
In the limit
- Following the pattern, it would seem likely that
- It appears to be This function is , the hyperbolic cosine. It is defined either by this power series or by the identity Interestingly, this power series is valid for all values of , not only values less than .
- The limit function, , has arc length from to given by
And , so . We have been a bit sloppy with notation here, using as both one of the limits and also as the variable in the integral. If we were to be more careful, we would have changed the variable in the integral to a different letter such as .
-
Step would read: “Now assume that the weight is distributed uniformly along the shape given by the answer to Step , that is to say, is now the arc length of . What is approximately in this case, where ? Work out an answer as a polynomial, valid for small values of , including one term more than in ." Since the construction is by iteration, the proof is by induction. We assume that the previous step (Step ) gave us the expected function, that is, we assume that Then to find , we begin by working out the arc length of from to : But this integral is going to be very hard to calculate directly: we will need to differentiate , square it, and then use the binomial theorem to expand the square root. However, we can use what we know about to sidestep many of these difficulties: is the expansion of up to the term in . Therefore, is the expansion of up to the term in . (We can work this out directly by differentiating if we wish.) In fact, it even agrees up to the term in , which is zero. Therefore will agree with the expansion of up to at least the term in . When we then use the binomial theorem to expand as a power series in , it will have to agree with up to at least the term in , since the expression inside the square root agrees up to at least this term. Thus when we integrate this to get , it will agree with up to at least the term in . (And the constant term in the integral is zero, as the integral is from to , which agrees with the zero constant term in the expansion of .) Then we integrate this final expression to get , so this will agree with up to at least the term in , and the constant term is also correct as . Since we let be the polynomial with just one term more than , we find that is the polynomial approximation to with terms up to , that is, as we wanted.
-
The limiting function is , and . Had we chosen a different -intercept, say , the limiting function would have been , which would have been a little bit less pretty.
A direct approach
Using the formula for arc length, this differential equation becomes (Here we’re being good and not using as the variable in the integration, to avoid confusing ourselves.) This equation may seem very hard at first, but we might notice that itself never appears, just its derivative.
So let’s write , to get which looks marginally simpler as there’s no differentiation involved.
We still have this pesky integral, but we can get rid of that by differentiating both sides with respect to , and making use of the fundamental theorem of calculus: No integral left!
We could try squaring both sides to get rid of the square root, but then we’d have , a squared derivative, which is not nice.
If we write as things might look more familiar (and we’ll write in place of , too): This is a separable differential equation! So separating the variables, we get The right hand side is easy. For the left hand side, we use the substitution , so , giving which simplifies to so , giving or .
Now we can also work out from our original differential equation that , so and .
But , so , giving .
Finally, using gives , so .
More generally, can you solve the equation ?
The argument is very similar to the above; one just has to take care with the extra term. The solution is .