Having read the two articles, they do not say that the linear approximation (just add the effects, or alternately, just ignore string stiffness) is wrong, only that the linear approximation is just that, an approximation. The various full nonlinear solutions give more accurate answers for sure, but approximate methods are far easier to use, and capture most of the important behavior.
More to the point, one should always start with the linear models and see if they suffice in practice before resorting to the far more complex nonlinear models.
If one really wants to capture the full nonlinear effects, it's hard to beat a full finite-element model of a practical string, and it's practical to program such a model given that strings are one dimensional. One breaks the string into a string of interconnected little cylinders, where each cylinder is small enough that its behavior is linear, and numerically solves the resulting system of coupled ordinary differential equations. I have a textbook on this, written by a researcher at Bell Labs, back when Bell Labs was riding high. With any luck, someone has already done this, and published their code.
More to the point, one should always start with the linear models and see if they suffice in practice before resorting to the far more complex nonlinear models.
If one really wants to capture the full nonlinear effects, it's hard to beat a full finite-element model of a practical string, and it's practical to program such a model given that strings are one dimensional. One breaks the string into a string of interconnected little cylinders, where each cylinder is small enough that its behavior is linear, and numerically solves the resulting system of coupled ordinary differential equations. I have a textbook on this, written by a researcher at Bell Labs, back when Bell Labs was riding high. With any luck, someone has already done this, and published their code.
Comment