The main function of ode is given as follows.
function dxdt = state( t,x,vgth,vgval1,vgval2)
vgval=vgval1+vgval2;
p=1;
k=10^0.7;
window1=1-((2*x)-1).^(2*p);
dxdt=k*(vgval-vgth+1.2)*window1;
end
The Script is given below.
step=0.01;
t = 0:step:10;
f=4*0.157;
vgate1= #(t) abs(5*sin(2*f*t)).*heaviside(5-t);
vgate2=#(t) -abs(5*sin(2*f*t)).*heaviside(t-5);
The Function call part is as follows.
x0=0.01;
vgth=1.9;
[t,x] = ode45(#(t,x) state1 (t,x,vgth,vgate1(t),vgate2(t)), t, x0);
plot(t,x)
Issue
It gives me error when I use the negative sign with vgate2 .
It works fine If i remove the negative sign of vgate2.
Desired Result
I want my plot with a negative sign in vgate2.Actually I want to use two positive sine pulses and two negative sign pulses.That is why I have used negative value of vgate2.
ODE integrators of order p expect the differential equation to be p+2 times continuously differentiable with decent sized derivatives.
Any deviation from that is seen as "stiffness" by step-size adaptation strategies, and reacted to by increasingly violent reductions in step-size. Any kink or jump in the lower derivatives is seen as similar to wild oscillations in the higher derivative, throwing the step-size adaptor for a loop.
However, if the integration is stopped directly at an event and then restarted using the values there as initial values, the integrator does not "see" the event, and thus has no need to react to it.
Related
In my script, I call the ODE solver ode15s which solves a system of 9 ODE's. A simplified structure of the code:
[t, x] = ode15s(#odefun,tini:tend,options)
...
function dx = odefun(t,x)
r1=... %rate equation 1, dependent on x(1) and x(3) for example
r2=... %rate equation 2
...
dx(1) = r1+r2-...
dx(2) = ...
...
dx(9) = ...
end
When reviewing the results I was curious why the profile of one state variable was increasing at a certain range. In order to investigate this, I used conditional debugging within the ode function so I could check all the rates and all the dx(i)/dt equations.
To my big surprise, I found out that the differential equation of the decreasing state variable was positive. So, I simulated multiple rounds with the F5-debug function, and noticed that indeed the state variable consistently decreased, while the dx(i)/dt would always remain positive.
Can anyone explain me how this is possible?
It is not advisable to pause the integration in the middle like that and examine the states and derivatives. ode15s does not simply step through the solution like a naive ODE solver. It makes a bunch of calls to the ODE function with semi-random states in order to compute higher-order derivatives. These states are not solutions to system but are used internally by ode15s to get a more accurate solution later.
If you want to get the derivative of your system at particular times, first compute the entire solution and then call your ODE function with slices of that solution at the times you are interested in.
this a question that envolves both programming and mathematics. So, I'm trying to write a code that computes the general solution of a system of linear ODEs described by . The mathematical formula it's shown above:
where the greek symbol \PHI that appers in the equation is the expm(A*t)
clear all
A=[-2]; %system matrix
t0=1; %initial time of simulation
tf=2; %final time of simulation
syms t x_0
x0=x_0;
hom=expm(A*t); %hom means "homogeneous solution"
hom_initialcond=hom*x0;%this is the homogeneous solution multiplied by the initial conditon
invhom=inv(hom); %this is the inverse of the greek letter at which, multiplied by the input of the system, composes the integrand of the integral
g=5*cos(2*t); %system input
integrand=invhom*g; %computation of the integrand
integral=int(integrand,t0,t); %computation of the definite integral from t0 to t, as shown by the math formula
partsol=hom*integral; %this is the particular solution
gen_sol=partsol+hom_initialcond %this is the general solution
x_0=1; %this is the initial condition
t=linspace(t0,tf); %vector of time from t0 to tf
y=double(subs(gen_sol)); %here I am evaluating my symbolic expression
plot(t,y)
The problem is that my plot of the ODE's solution it's not looking well, as you can see:
The solution it's wrong because the curve shown in the graph doesnt start at the initial value equals 1. But the shape it's very similar from the plot gave by the MATLAB ODE solver:
However, if I set t0=0 then the plot gave by my code and by MATLAB solver it's exacly equal to each other. So, my code it's fine for t0=0 but with any other values my code goes wrong.
The general solution in terms of fundamental matrices is
or more often seen as
But since the initial time is often taken to be zero, the inverse of the fundamental matrix is often omitted since it is the identity for linear, constant coefficient problems at zero (i.e., expm(zeros(n)) == eye(n)) and the c vector is equivalent to the initial condition vector.
Swapping some of the lines around near your symbolic declaration to this
syms t x_0 c_0
hom = expm(A*t) ;
invhom = inv(hom) ;
invhom_0 = subs(invhom,t,sym(t0)) ;
c_0 = invhom_0 * x_0 ;
hom_initialcond = hom * c_0 ;
should provide the correct solution for non-zero initial time.
I am trying to solve two equations with complex coefficients using ode45.
But iam getting an error message as "Inputs must be floats, namely single or
double."
X = sym(['[',sprintf('X(%d) ',1:2),']']);
Eqns=[-(X(1)*23788605396486326904946699391889*1i)/38685626227668133590597632 + (X(2)*23788605396486326904946699391889*1i)/38685626227668133590597632; (X(2)*23788605396486326904946699391889*1i)/38685626227668133590597632 + X(1)*(- 2500000 + (5223289665997855453060886952725538686654593059791*1i)/324518553658426726783156020576256)] ;
f=#(t,X)[Eqns];
[t,Xabc]=ode45(f,[0 300*10^-6],[0 1])
How can i fix this ? Can somebody can help me ?
Per the MathWorks Support Team, the "ODE solvers in MATLAB 5 (R12) and later releases properly handle complex valued systems." So the complex numbers are the not the issue.
The error "Inputs must be floats, namely single or double." stems from your definition of f using Symbolic Variables that are, unlike complex numbers, not floats. The easiest way to get around this is to not use the Symbolic Toolbox at all; just makes Eqns an anonymous function:
Eqns= #(t,X) [-(X(1)*23788605396486326904946699391889*1i)/38685626227668133590597632 + (X(2)*23788605396486326904946699391889*1i)/38685626227668133590597632; (X(2)*23788605396486326904946699391889*1i)/38685626227668133590597632 + X(1)*(- 2500000 + (5223289665997855453060886952725538686654593059791*1i)/324518553658426726783156020576256)] ;
[t,Xabc]=ode45(Eqns,[0 300*10^-6],[0 1]);
That being said, I'd like to point out that numerically time integrating this system over 300 microseconds (I assume without units given) will take a long time since your coefficient matrix has imaginary eigenvalues on the order of 10E+10. The extremely short wavelength of those oscillations will more than likely be resolved by Matlab's adaptive methods, and that will take a while to solve for a time span just a few orders greater than the wavelength.
I'd, therefore, suggest an analytical approach to this problem; unless it is a stepping stone another problem that is non-analytically solvable.
Systems of ordinary differential equations of the form
,
which is a linear, homogenous system with a constant coefficient matrix, has the general solution
,
where the m-subscripted exponential function is the matrix exponential.
Therefore, the analytical solution to the system can be calculated exactly assuming the matrix exponential can be calculated.
In Matlab, the matrix exponential is calculate via the expm function.
The following code computes the analytical solution and compares it to the numerical one for a short time span:
% Set-up
A = [-23788605396486326904946699391889i/38685626227668133590597632,23788605396486326904946699391889i/38685626227668133590597632;...
-2500000+5223289665997855453060886952725538686654593059791i/324518553658426726783156020576256,23788605396486326904946699391889i/38685626227668133590597632];
Eqns = #(t,X) A*X;
X0 = [0;1];
% Numerical
options = odeset('RelTol',1E-8,'AbsTol',1E-8);
[t,Xabc]=ode45(Eqns,[0 1E-9],X0,options);
% Analytical
Xana = cell2mat(arrayfun(#(tk) expm(A*tk)*X0,t,'UniformOutput',false)')';
k = 1;
% Plots
figure(1);
subplot(3,1,1)
plot(t,abs(Xana(:,k)),t,abs(Xabc(:,k)),'--');
title('Magnitude');
subplot(3,1,2)
plot(t,real(Xana(:,k)),t,real(Xabc(:,k)),'--');
title('Real');
ylabel('Values');
subplot(3,1,3)
plot(t,imag(Xana(:,k)),t,imag(Xabc(:,k)),'--');
title('Imaginary');
xlabel('Time');
The comparison plot is:
The output of ode45 matches the magnitude and real parts of the solution very well, but the imaginary portion is out-of-phase by exactly π.
However, since ode45's error estimator only looks at norms, the phase difference is not noticed which may lead to problems depending on the application.
It will be noted that while the matrix exponential solution is far more costly than ode45 for the same number of time vector elements, the analytical solution will produce the exact solution for any time vector of any density given to it. So for long time solutions, the matrix exponential can be viewed as an improvement in some sense.
I have a system of linked differential equations that I am solving with the ode23 solver. When a certain threshold is reached one of the parameters changes which reverses the slope of my function.
I followed the behavior of the ode with the debugging function and noticed that it starts to jump back in "time" around this point. Basically it generates more data points.However, these are not all represented in the final solution vector.
Can somebody explain this behavior, especially why not all calculated values find their way into the solution vector?
//Edit: To clarify, the behavior starts when v changes from 0 to any other value. (When I write every value of v to a vector it has more than a 1000 components while the ode solver solution only has ~300).
Find the code of my equations below:
%chemostat model, based on:
%DCc=-v0*Cc/V + umax*Cs*Cc/(Ks+Cs)-rd
%Dcs=(v0/V)*(Cs0-Cs) - Cc*(Ys*umax*Cs/(Ks+Cs)-m)
function dydt=systemEquationsRibose(t,y,funV0Ribose,V,umax,Ks,rd,Cs0,Ys,m)
v=funV0Ribose(t,y); %funV0Ribose determines v dependent on y(1)
if y(2)<0
y(2)=0
end
dydt=[-(v/V)*y(1)+(umax*y(1)*y(2))/(Ks+y(2))-rd;
(v/V)*(Cs0-y(2))-((1/Ys)*(umax*y(2)*y(1))/(Ks+y(2)))];
Thanks in advance!
Cheers,
dahlai
The first conditional can also be expressed as
y(2) = max(0, y(2)).
As one can see, this is still a continuous function, but with a kink, i.e., a discontinuity in the first derivative. One can this also interpret as a point with curvature radius 0, i.e., infinite curvature.
ode23 uses an order 2 method to integrate, an order 3 method to estimate the error and probably the order 1 Euler step to estimate stiffness.
An integration step over the kink renders all discretization errors to be order 1 (or 2, depending on the convention), confounding the logic of the step size control. This forces a rather radical step-size reduction, but since that small step then falls, most probably, short of the kink, the correct orders are found again, resulting in a step-size increase in the next step which could again go over the kink etc.
The return array only contains successful integration steps, not the failed attempts of the step-size control.
In Modelica, I have a variable x which is dependent on (a, b,c). For a given simulation time, its plot (x,time) looks smooth and continuous. I would like to have the slope of this curve without having to explicitly differentiate der(x) because I get errors regarding the partial derivatives with respect to a, b or c. Is this possible? In other words I want the slope of the final output, without having to differentiate what it is behind it.
You cannot do something like this in Modelica itself because you do not have any access to the integrator, previous time, or similar. You can get an approximation in Modelica code by using sampling, but this slightly changes simulation results and may be a performance bottleneck:
model M
Real signal = time;
Real approx_der(start=0);
discrete Real x(start=0);
discrete Real t(start=0);
equation
when sample(0.1,0.1) then
x = signal;
t = time;
approx_der = (x-pre(x)) / (t-pre(t));
end when;
end M;
It is easier to simply use post-processing. Load up the result-file in octave, matlab or similar and plot the approximate derivative:
plot(time(2:length(time)),diff(y) ./ diff(time))
Modelica.Blocks.Continuous.Derivative x_dot(start=1) This provides an approximation of the derivative. I gave the x as an input and got x_dot.y as the derivative with no problems.