I ran through the algebra which I had previously done for the Verlet method without the force - this lead to the same code as you see below, but the "+(2*F/D)" term was missing when I ignored the external force. The algorithm worked accurately, as expected, however for the following parameters:
m = 7 ; k = 8 ; b = 0.1 ;
params = [m,k,b];
(and step size h = 0.001)
a force far above something like 0.00001 is much too big. I suspect I've missed a trick with the algebra.
My question is whether someone can spot the flaw in my addition of a force term in my Verlet method
% verlet.m
% uses the verlet step algorithm to integrate the simple harmonic
% oscillator.
% stepsize h, for a second-order ODE
function vout = verlet(vinverletx,h,params,F)
% vin is the particle vector (xn,yn)
x0 = vinverletx(1);
x1 = vinverletx(2);
% find the verlet coefficients
D = (2*params(1))+(params(3)*h);
A = (2/D)*((2*params(1))-(params(2)*h^2));
B=(1/D)*((params(3)*h)-(2*params(1)));
x2 = (A*x1)+(B*x0)+(2*F/D);
vout = x2;
% vout is the particle vector (xn+1,yn+1)
end
As written in the answer to the previous question, the moment friction enters the equation, the system is no longer conservative and the name "Verlet" does no longer apply. It is still a valid discretization of
m*x''+b*x'+k*x = F
(with some slight error with large consequences).
The discretization employs the central difference quotients of first and second order
x'[k] = (x[k+1]-x[k-1])/(2*h) + O(h^2)
x''[k] = (x[k+1]-2*x[k]+x[k-1])/(h^2) + O(h^2)
resulting in
(2*m+b*h)*x[k+1] - 2*(2*m+h^2*k) * x[k] + (2*m-b*h)*x[k-1] = 2*h^2 * F[k] + O(h^4)
Error: As you can see, you are missing a factor h^2 in the term with F.
Related
I am currently working on an assignment where I need to create two different controllers in Matlab/Simulink for a robotic exoskeleton leg. The idea behind this is to compare both of them and see which controller is better at assisting a human wearing it. I am having a lot of trouble putting specific equations into a Matlab function block to then run in Simulink to get results for an AFO (adaptive frequency oscillator). The link has the equations I'm trying to put in and the following is the code I have so far:
function [pos_AFO, vel_AFO, acc_AFO, offset, omega, phi, ampl, phi1] = LHip(theta, eps, nu, dt, AFO_on)
t = 0;
% syms j
% M = 6;
% j = sym('j', [1 M]);
if t == 0
omega = 3*pi/2;
theta = 0;
phi = pi/2;
ampl = 0;
else
omega = omega*(t-1) + dt*(eps*offset*cos(phi1));
theta = theta*(t-1) + dt*(nu*offset);
phi = phi*(t-1) + dt*(omega + eps*offset*cos(phi*core(t-1)));
phi1 = phi*(t-1) + dt*(omega + eps*offset*cos(phi*core(t-1)));
ampl = ampl*(t-1) + dt*(nu*offset*sin(phi));
offset = theta - theta*(t-1) - sym(ampl*sin(phi), [1 M]);
end
pos_AFO = (theta*(t-1) + symsum(ampl*(t-1)*sin(phi* (t-1))))*AFO_on; %symsum needs input argument for index M and range
vel_AFO = diff(pos_AFO)*AFO_on;
acc_AFO = diff(vel_AFO)*AFO_on;
end
https://www.pastepic.xyz/image/pg4mP
Essentially, I don't know how to do the subscripts, sigma, or the (t+1) function. Any help is appreciated as this is due next week
You are looking to find the result of an adaptive process therefore your algorithm needs to consider time as it progresses. There is no (t-1) operator as such. It is just a mathematical notation telling you that you need to reuse an old value to calculate a new value.
omega_old=0;
theta_old=0;
% initialize the rest of your variables
for [t=1:N]
omega[t] = omega_old + % here is the rest of your omega calculation
theta[t] = theta_old + % ...
% more code .....
% remember your old values for next iteration
omega_old = omega[t];
theta_old = theta[t];
end
I think you forgot to apply the modulo operation to phi judging by the original formula you linked. As a general rule, design your code in small pieces, make sure the output of each piece makes sense and then combine all pieces and make sure the overall result is correct.
Finding m and c for an equation y = mx + c, with the help of math and plots.
y is data_model_1, x is time.
Avoid other MATLAB functions like fitlm as it defeats the purpose.
I am having trouble finding the constants m and c. I am trying to find both m and c by limiting them to a range (based on smart guess) and I need to deduce the m and c values based on the mean error range. The point where mean error range is closest to 0 should be my m and c values.
load(file)
figure
plot(time,data_model_1,'bo')
hold on
for a = 0.11:0.01:0.13
c = -13:0.1:-10
data_a = a * time + c ;
plot(time,data_a,'r');
end
figure
hold on
for a = 0.11:0.01:0.13
c = -13:0.1:-10
data_a = a * time + c ;
mean_range = mean(abs(data_a - data_model_1));
plot(a,mean_range,'b.')
end
A quick & dirty approach
You can quickly get m and c using fminsearch(). In the first example below, the error function is the sum of squared error (SSE). The second example uses the sum of absolute error. The key here is ensuring the error function is convex.
Note that c = Beta(1) and m = Beta(2).
Reproducible example (MATLAB code[1]):
% Generate some example data
N = 50;
X = 2 + 13*random(makedist('Beta',.7,.8),N,1);
Y = 5 + 1.5.*X + randn(N,1);
% Example 1
SSEh =#(Beta) sum((Y - (Beta(1) + (Beta(2).*X))).^2);
Beta0 = [0.5 0.5]; % Initial Guess
[Beta SSE] = fminsearch(SSEh,Beta0)
% Example 2
SAEh =#(Beta) sum(abs(Y-(Beta(1) + Beta(2).*X)));
[Beta SumAbsErr] = fminsearch(SAEh,Beta0)
This is a quick & dirty approach that can work for many applications.
#Wolfie's comment directs you to the analytical approach to solve a system of linear equations with the \ operator or mldivide(). This is the more correct approach (though it will get a similar answer). One caveat is this approach gets the SSE answer.
[1] Tested with MATLAB R2018a
I wanted to compute a finite difference with respect to the change of the function in Matlab. In other words
f(x+e_i) - f(x)
is what I want to compute. Note that its very similar to the first order numerical partial differentiation (forward differentiation in this case) :
(f(x+e_i) - f(x)) / (e_i)
Currently I am using for loops to compute it but it seems that Matlab is much slower than I thought. I am doing it as follows:
function [ dU ] = numerical_gradient(W,f,eps)
%compute gradient or finite difference update numerically
[D1, D2] = size(W);
dU = zeros(D1, D2);
for d1=1:D1
for d2=1:D2
e = zeros([D1,D2]);
e(d1,d2) = eps;
f_e1 = f(W+e);
f_e2 = f(W-e);
%numerical_derivative = (f_e1 - f_e2)/(2*eps);
%dU(d1,d2) = numerical_derivative
numerical_difference = f_e1 - f_e2;
dU(d1,d2) = numerical_difference;
end
end
it seems that its really difficult to vectorize the above code because for numerical differences follow the definition of the gradient and partial derivatives which is:
df_dW = [ ..., df_dWi, ...]
where df_dWi assumes the other coordinates are fixed and it only worries about the change of the variable Wi. Thus, I can't just change all the coordinates at once.
Is there a better way to do this? My intuition tells me that the best way to do this is to implement this not in matlab but in some other language, say C and then have matlab call that library. Is that true? Does it mean that the best solution is some Matlab library that does this for me?
I did see:
https://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/answers/332414-what-is-the-quickest-way-to-find-a-gradient-or-finite-difference-in-matlab-of-a-real-function-in-hig
but unfortunately, it computes exact derivatives, which isn't what I am looking for. I am explicitly looking for differences or "bad approximation" to the gradient.
Since it seems this code is not easy to vectorize (in fact my intuition tells me its not possible to do so) my only other idea is to implement this finite difference function in C and then have C call the function. Is this a good idea? Anyone know how to do this?
I did try reading the following:
https://www.mathworks.com/help/matlab/matlab_external/standalone-example.html
but it was too difficult to understand for me because I have no idea what a mex file is, if I need to have a arrayProduct.c file as well as a mex.h file, if I also needed a matlab file, etc. If there just existed a way to simply download a working example with all the functions they suggest there and some instructions to compile it, then it would be super helpful. But just reading the hmtl/article like that its impossible for me to infer what they want me to do.
For the sake of completness it seems reddit has some comments in its discussion of this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/matlab/comments/623m7i/how_does_one_compute_a_single_finite_differences/
Here is a more efficient doing so:
function [ vNumericalGrad ] = CalcNumericalGradient( hInputFunc, vInputPoint, epsVal )
numElmnts = size(vInputPoint, 1);
vNumericalGrad = zeros([numElmnts, 1]);
refVal = hInputFunc(vInputPoint);
for ii = 1:numElmnts
% Set the perturbation vector
refInVal = vInputPoint(ii);
vInputPoint(ii) = refInVal + epsVal;
% Compute Numerical Gradient
vNumericalGrad(ii) = (hInputFunc(vInputPoint) - refVal) / epsVal;
% Reset the perturbation vector
vInputPoint(ii) = refInVal;
end
end
This code allocate less memory.
The above code performance will be totally controlled by the speed of the hInputFunction.
The small tricks compared to original code are:
No memory reallocation of e each iteration.
Instead of addition of vectors W + e there are 2 assignments to the array.
Decreasing the calls to hInputFunction() by half by defining the reference value outside the loop (This only works for Forward / Backward difference).
Probably this will be very close to C code unless you can code in C more efficiently the function which computes the value (hInputFunction).
A full implementation can be found in StackOverflow Q44984132 Repository (It was Posted in StackOverflow Q44984132).
See CalcFunGrad( vX, hObjFun, difMode, epsVal ).
A way better approach (numerically more stable, no issue of choosing the perturbation hyperparameter, accurate up to machine precision) is to use algorithmic/automatic differentiation. For this you need the Matlab Deep Learning Toolbox. Then you can use dlgradient to compute the gradient. Below you find the source code attached corresponding to your example.
Most importantly, you can examine the error and observe that the deviation of the automatic approach from the analytical solution is indeed machine precision, while for the finite difference approach (I choose second order central differences) the error is orders of magnitude higher. For 100 points and a range of $[-10, 10]$ this errors are somewhat tolerable, but if you play a bit with Rand_Max and n_points you observe that the errors become larger and larger.
Error of algorithmic / automatic diff. is: 1.4755528111219851e-14
Error of finite difference diff. is: 1.9999999999348703e-01 for perturbation 1.0000000000000001e-01
Error of finite difference diff. is: 1.9999999632850161e-03 for perturbation 1.0000000000000000e-02
Error of finite difference diff. is: 1.9999905867860374e-05 for perturbation 1.0000000000000000e-03
Error of finite difference diff. is: 1.9664569947425062e-07 for perturbation 1.0000000000000000e-04
Error of finite difference diff. is: 1.0537897883625319e-07 for perturbation 1.0000000000000001e-05
Error of finite difference diff. is: 1.5469326944467290e-06 for perturbation 9.9999999999999995e-07
Error of finite difference diff. is: 1.3322061696937969e-05 for perturbation 9.9999999999999995e-08
Error of finite difference diff. is: 1.7059535957436630e-04 for perturbation 1.0000000000000000e-08
Error of finite difference diff. is: 4.9702408787320664e-04 for perturbation 1.0000000000000001e-09
Source Code:
f2.m
function y = f2(x)
x1 = x(:, 1);
x2 = x(:, 2);
x3 = x(:, 3);
y = x1.^2 + 2*x2.^2 + 2*x3.^3 + 2*x1.*x2 + 2*x2.*x3;
f2_grad_analytic.m:
function grad = f2_grad_analytic(x)
x1 = x(:, 1);
x2 = x(:, 2);
x3 = x(:, 3);
grad(:, 1) = 2*x1 + 2*x2;
grad(:, 2) = 4*x2 + 2*x1 + 2 * x3;
grad(:, 3) = 6*x3.^2 + 2*x2;
f2_grad_AD.m:
function grad = f2_grad_AD(x)
x1 = x(:, 1);
x2 = x(:, 2);
x3 = x(:, 3);
y = x1.^2 + 2*x2.^2 + 2*x3.^3 + 2*x1.*x2 + 2*x2.*x3;
grad = dlgradient(y, x);
CalcNumericalGradient.m:
function NumericalGrad = CalcNumericalGradient(InputPoints, eps)
% (Central, second order accurate FD)
NumericalGrad = zeros(size(InputPoints) );
for i = 1:size(InputPoints, 2)
perturb = zeros(size(InputPoints));
perturb(:, i) = eps;
NumericalGrad(:, i) = (f2(InputPoints + perturb) - f2(InputPoints - perturb)) / (2 * eps);
end
main.m:
clear;
close all;
clc;
n_points = 100;
Rand_Max = 20;
x_test_FD = rand(n_points, 3) * Rand_Max - Rand_Max/2;
% Calculate analytical solution
grad_analytic = f2_grad_analytic(x_test_FD);
grad_AD = zeros(n_points, 3);
for i = 1:n_points
x_test_dl = dlarray(x_test_FD(i,:) );
grad_AD(i,:) = dlfeval(#f2_grad_AD, x_test_dl);
end
Err_AD = norm(grad_AD - grad_analytic);
fprintf("Error of algorithmic / automatic diff. is: %.16e\n", Err_AD);
eps_range = [1e-1, 1e-2, 1e-3, 1e-4, 1e-5, 1e-6, 1e-7, 1e-8, 1e-9];
for i = 1:length(eps_range)
eps = eps_range(i);
grad_FD = CalcNumericalGradient(x_test_FD, eps);
Err_FD = norm(grad_FD - grad_analytic);
fprintf("Error of finite difference diff. is: %.16e for perturbation %.16e\n", Err_FD, eps);
end
I'm running a set of ODEs with ode45 in MATLAB and I need to save one of the variables (that's not the derivative) for later use. I'm using the function 'assignin' to assign a temporary variable in the base workspace and updating it at each step. This seems to work, however, the size of the array does not match the size of the solution vector acquired from ode45. For example, I have the following nested function:
function [Z,Y] = droplet_momentum(theta,K,G,P,zspan,Y0)
options = odeset('RelTol',1e-7,'AbsTol',1e-7);
[Z,Y] = ode45(#momentum,zspan,Y0,options);
function DY = momentum(z,y)
DY = zeros(4,1);
%Entrained Total Velocity
Ve = sin(theta)*(y(4));
%Total Relative Velocity
Urs = sqrt((y(1) - y(4))^2 + (y(2) - Ve*cos(theta))^2 + (y(3))^2);
%Coefficients
PSI = K*Urs/y(1);
PHI = P*Urs/y(1);
%Liquid Axial Velocity
DY(1) = PSI*sign(y(1) - y(4))*(1 + (1/6)*(abs(y(1) - y(4))*G)^(2/3));
%Liquid Radial Velocity
DY(2) = PSI*sign(y(2) - Ve*cos(theta))*(1 + (1/6)*(abs(y(2) - ...
Ve*cos(theta))*G)^(2/3));
%Liquid Tangential Velocity
DY(3) = PSI*sign(y(3))*(1 + (1/6)*(abs(y(3))*G)^(2/3));
%Gaseous Axial Velocity
DY(4) = (1/z/y(4))*((PHI/z)*sign(y(1) - y(4))*(1 + ...
(1/6)*(abs(y(1) - y(4))*G)^(2/3)) + Ve*Ve - y(4)*y(4));
assignin('base','Ve_step',Ve);
evalin('base','Ve_out(end+1) = Ve_step');
end
end
In the above code, theta (radians), K (negative value), P, & G are constants and for the sake of this example can be taken as any value. Zspan is just the integration time step for the ODE solver and Y0 is the initial conditions vector (4x1). Again, for the sake of this example these can take any reasonable value. Now in the main file, the function is called with the following:
Ve_out = 0;
[Z,Y] = droplet_momentum(theta,K,G,P,zspan,Y0);
Ve_out = Ve_out(2:end);
This method works without complaint from MATLAB, but the problem is that the size of Ve_out is not the same as the size of Z or Y. The reason for this is because MATLAB calls the ODE function multiple times for its algorithm, so the solution is going to be slightly smaller than Ve_out. As am304 suggested, I could just simply calculated DY by giving the ode function a Z and Y vector such as DY = momentum(Z,Y), however, I need to get this working with 'assignin' (or similar method) because another version of this problem has an implicit dependence between DY and Ve and it would be too computationally expensive to calculate DY at every iteration (I will be running this problem for many iterations).
Ok, so let's start off with a quick example of an SSCCE:
function [Z,Y] = khan
options = odeset('RelTol',1e-7,'AbsTol',1e-7);
[Z,Y] = ode45(#momentum,[0 12],[0 0],options);
end
function Dy = momentum(z,y)
Dy = [0 0]';
Dy(1) = 3*y(1) + 2* y(2) - 2;
Dy(2) = y(1) - y(2);
Ve = Dy(1)+ y(2);
assignin('base','Ve_step',Ve);
evalin('base','Ve_out(end+1) = Ve_step;');
assignin('base','T_step',z);
evalin('base','T_out(end+1) = T_step;');
end
By running [Z,Y] = khan as the command line, I get a complete functional code that demonstrates your problem, without all the headaches associated. My patience for this has been exhausted: live and learn.
This seems to work, however, the size of the array does not match the
size of the solution vector acquired from ode45
Note that I added two lines to your code which extracts time variable. From the command prompt, one simply has to run the following to understand what's going on:
Ve_out = [];
T_out = [];
[Z,Y] = khan;
size (Z)
size (T_out)
size (Ve_out)
plot (diff(T_out))
ans =
109 1
ans =
1 163
ans =
1 163
Basically ode45 is an iterative algorithm, which means it will regularly course correct (that's why you regularly see diff(T) = 0). You can't force the algorithm to do what you want, you have to live with it.
So your options are
1. Use a fixed step algorithm
2. Have a function call that reproduces what you want after the ode45 algorithm has done its dirty work. (am304's solution)
3. Collects the data with the time function, then have an algorithm parse through everything to removes the extra data.
Can you not do something like that? Obviously check the sizes of the matrices/vectors are correct and amend the code accordingly.
[Z,Y] = droplet_momentum2(theta,K,G,P,zspan,Y0);
DY = momentum(Z,Y);
Ve = sin(theta)*(0.5*z*DY(4) + y(4));
i.e. once the ODE is solved, computed the derivative DY as a function of Z and Y (which have just been solved by the ODE) and finally Ve.
I'd like to create a Matlab plot of propeller angular velocity in terms of applied current. The point is, this requires combining two interdependent sets of data.
Firstly, drag coefficient c_d depends on angular velocity omega (I have no formula, just data) as seen on the plot below - the characteristics c_d(omega) could be easily linearised as c_d(omega) = p*omega + p_0.
Secondly, omega depends not only on applied current i, but also on the drag coefficient c_d(omega).
A script that solves the case, where c_d is constant below. It must be somehow possible to join those two using Matlab commands. Thanks for any help.
%%Lookup table for drag coefficient c_d
c_d_lookup = [248.9188579 0.036688351; %[\omega c_d]
280.2300647 0.037199094;
308.6091183 0.037199094;
338.6636881 0.03779496;
365.8908244 0.038305703;
393.9557188 0.039156941;
421.9158934 0.039667683;
452.2846224 0.040348674;
480.663676 0.041199911;
511.032405 0.042051149;
538.9925796 0.042561892;
567.2669135 0.043242882;
598.4734005 0.043668501;
624.1297405 0.044264368;
651.9851954 0.044604863;
683.6105614 0.045200729];
subplot(2,1,1)
plot(c_d_lookup(:,1), c_d_lookup(:,2))
title('This is how c_d depends on \omega')
ylabel('c_d')
xlabel('\omega [rad/s]')
%%Calculate propeller angular speed in terms of applied current. omega
%%depends on c_d, which in turn depends on omega. The formula is:
% omega(i) = sqrt(a*i / (b * c_d(omega)))
% Where:
% i - applied current
% omega - propeller angular velocity
% a,b - coefficients
i = [1:15];
a = 0.0718;
b = 3.8589e-005;
%If c_d was constant, I'd do:
omega_i = sqrt(a .* i / (b * 0.042));
subplot(2,1,2)
plot(i, omega_i)
ylabel({'Propeller ang. vel.', '\omega [rad/s]'})
xlabel('Applied current i[A]')
title('Propeller angular velocity in terms of applied current')
EDIT:
Trying to follow bdecaf's solution. So I created a function c_d_find, like so:
function c_d = c_d_find(omega, c_d_lookup)
c_d = interp1(c_d_lookup(:,1), c_d_lookup(:,2), omega, 'linear', 'extrap');
end
I don't know anything about Matlab function handles, but seem to understand the idea... In Matlab command window I typed:
f = #(omega) omega - sqrt(a .* i / (b * c_d_find(omega, c_d_lookup)))
which I hope created the correct function handle. What do I do next? Executing the below doesn't work:
>> omega_consistent = fzero(f,0)
??? Operands to the || and && operators must be convertible to logical scalar
values.
Error in ==> fzero at 333
elseif ~isfinite(fx) || ~isreal(fx)
hmmm...
Wonder if I understand correctly - but looks like you are looking for a consistent solution.
Your equations don't look to complicated I would outline the solution like this:
Write a function function c_d = c_d_find(omega) that does some interpolation or so
make a function handle like f = #(omega) omega - sqrt(a .* i / (b * c_d_find(omega))) - this is zero for consistent omega
calculate a consistent omega with omega_consistent =fzero(f,omega_0)