Skip to main content

equation solving - Help needed to make NIntegrate Converge


I have the following notebook (trying to caclulate the pull-in voltage of a structure):


phi1 = b1 Cos[1.03855 x1] - b1 Cosh[1.03855 x1] + a1 Sin[1.03855 x1] -
a1 Sinh[1.03855 x1]

phi2 = b2 Cos[1.84683 x2] + d2 Cosh[1.84683 x2]


param = {b1 -> -0.255808, b2 -> 0.0340514, d2 -> 0.00305984, a1 -> 1,
c1 -> -1}

(*Numeric Constants*)
h = 2*10^-6;
wa = 10*10^-6;
la = 60*10^-6;
w = 100*10^-6;
l = 100*10^-6;

g = 1*10^-6;
e = 160*10^9;
epsilon0 = 8.85*10^-12;
sig0 = 0

i1 = wa*h^3/12;
i2 = w*h^3/12;
Area1 = h*wa;
Area2 = h*w;



θ = (Area2/Area1)^(1/4);
α = (i2/i1)^(1/4);
u = la/(l + la);
y = l/(l + la);


numericPhi1[x1_] = phi1 /. param
numericPhi2[x2_] = phi2 /. param


ph[x_] = Piecewise[{{numericPhi1[x],
0 <= x <= u}, {numericPhi2[1 - x], u < x <= 1}}];

ϕ[x_] :=
Piecewise[{{ph[x], 0 <= x <= 1}, {ph[2 - x], 1 < x <= 2}}];
b[x_?NumericQ] :=
Piecewise[{{wa, 0 <= x <= u}, {w, u < x <= 1}, {w,
1 < x <= 1 + (1 - u)}, {wa, 1 + (1 - u) < x <= 2}}]
i[x_?NumericQ] :=
Piecewise[{{i1, 0 <= x <= u}, {i2, u < x <= 1}, {i2,

1 < x <= 1 + (1 - u)}, {i1, 1 + (1 - u) < x <= 2}}]

nom[n_?NumericQ] :=
NIntegrate[(b[x] ϕ[x])/(g - n ϕ[x])^2, {x, 0, 2}]

denom[n_?NumericQ] :=
NIntegrate[(2 b[x] ϕ[x]^2)/(g - n ϕ[x])^3, {x, 0, 2}]

Now I try something simple:


nom[1.5]


If I do that I get the following warning:



NIntegrate::ncvb: NIntegrate failed to converge to prescribed accuracy after 9 recursive bisections in x near {x} = {0.00164274}. NIntegrate obtained 1.0191585739576856*^7 and 9.39610858946137*^6 for the integral and error estimates.



As you can see the error estimate is catastrophically huge 9.39610858946137*10^6, hence I do not trust the result.


As pointed out in the comments by @AccidentalFourierTransform, it might be due to my numeric constants, since they vary over large magnitudes. However, I cannot change those constants as they are fixed by the physics of the problem.


Any help would be very much appreciated !



Answer



Some notes on debugging numerical solvers.



Singularities can cause all sorts of trouble with numerical routines. Sometimes it's not easy to tell whether your function has one if it has a complicated formula. Having a denominator as the OP's nom[] does, certainly should suggest the possibility, and it should be one of the first things a user investigates. Making a graph is a relatively cheap way to examine a function for potential singularities, at least for univariate or bivariate functions. @AccidentalFourierTransform has already pointed out that indeed singularities are at the root of the trouble with nom[1.5]. Aside from emphasizing the Make-A-Graph strategy, I want to show that there is a feasible domain for n and how to find it.


Make A Graph


The somewhat consistent syntax design of Mathematica makes this simple: Copy input (Cmd-L on a Mac), change the command (NIntegrate) to Plot, nix the options. In this case, we have to copy the code from nom and insert a value for n:


Plot[(b[x] ϕ[x])/(g - n ϕ[x])^2 /. n -> 1.5, {x, 0, 2}]

Mathematica graphics


Well, we see part of the graph being cut off. So we have to extend the PlotRange:


Plot[(b[x] ϕ[x])/(g - n ϕ[x])^2 /. n -> 1.5, {x, 0, 2}, PlotRange -> All]

Mathematica graphics



The spikes at or near x == 0, 2 might be vertical asymptotes (truncated by discrete sampling). The graph suggests there might be a problem


Analyzing the integrand


The integrand is a complicated combination of Piecewise functions that stumps Solve and gives NSolve some difficulty. One can get at the pieces in various ways. PiecewiseExpand will produce a single Piecewise function. Part 2 of each element of Part 1 of a Piecewise function yields the intervals for each piece and reveals the singularities where the pieces join:


PiecewiseExpand[(b[x] ϕ[x])/(g - n ϕ[x])^2][[1, All, 2]]
(* {3/8 < x <= 1, 1 < x < 13/8, 13/8 < x <= 2, x == 13/8, 0 <= x <= 3/8} *)

Passing these points to the numerical routine normally helps, when the function is otherwise well-behaved. For example, for feasible values of n, the following is faster than the OP's definition:


nom[n_?NumericQ] := 
NIntegrate[(b[x] ϕ[x])/(g - n ϕ[x])^2, {x, 0, 3/8, 1, 13/8, 2}];


We can get the expression for the denominator corresponding to the first singularity shown in the graph above using the second argument of PiecewiseExpand, which are assumptions to be applied in the expansion:


PiecewiseExpand[g - n ϕ[x], 0 < x < 3/8]
(*
1/1000000 - n (-0.255808 Cos[1.03855 x] + 0.255808 Cosh[1.03855 x]
+ Sin[1.03855 x] - Sinh[1.03855 x])
*)

This factor of the denominator is an analytic function and so has integer-order zeros. The denominator itself, being its square, has zeros of order 2 or higher (if it has any zero), which would not be integrable as @AccidentalFourierTransform has also pointed out. Where the factor is zero then determines whether function is integrable over {x, 0, 3/8}. It is similar for the other pieces.


Solving for n


The equation g - n ϕ[x] == 0 is difficult to solve for x but easy for n:



npw = n /. First@Solve[g - n ϕ[x] == 0, n] // PiecewiseExpand

Mathematica graphics


We can see how the singularity at x depends on n by plotting the inverse relation:


Plot[npw, {x, 0, 2}, AxesOrigin -> {0, 0}, Frame -> True, 
FrameLabel -> {x, n}]

Mathematica graphics


The minimum value of n is at x == 1:


n0 = npw /. x -> 1

(* 0.000026946 *)

For values of n less than n0, the integral converges:


nom[0.9 n0]
nom[0]
nom[-1]
(*
1.5136*10^8
3.9056*10^6
0.0344148

*)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

plotting - Filling between two spheres in SphericalPlot3D

Manipulate[ SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, Mesh -> None, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], {n, 0, 1}] I cant' seem to be able to make a filling between two spheres. I've already tried the obvious Filling -> {1 -> {2}} but Mathematica doesn't seem to like that option. Is there any easy way around this or ... Answer There is no built-in filling in SphericalPlot3D . One option is to use ParametricPlot3D to draw the surfaces between the two shells: Manipulate[ Show[SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], ParametricPlot3D[{ r {Sin[t] Cos[1.5 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[1.5 Pi], Cos[t]}, r {Sin[t] Cos[0 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[0 Pi], Cos[t]}}, {r, 1, 2 - n}, {t, 0, Pi}, PlotStyle -> Yellow, Mesh -> {2, 15}]], {n, 0, 1}]

plotting - Plot 4D data with color as 4th dimension

I have a list of 4D data (x position, y position, amplitude, wavelength). I want to plot x, y, and amplitude on a 3D plot and have the color of the points correspond to the wavelength. I have seen many examples using functions to define color but my wavelength cannot be expressed by an analytic function. Is there a simple way to do this? Answer Here a another possible way to visualize 4D data: data = Flatten[Table[{x, y, x^2 + y^2, Sin[x - y]}, {x, -Pi, Pi,Pi/10}, {y,-Pi,Pi, Pi/10}], 1]; You can use the function Point along with VertexColors . Now the points are places using the first three elements and the color is determined by the fourth. In this case I used Hue, but you can use whatever you prefer. Graphics3D[ Point[data[[All, 1 ;; 3]], VertexColors -> Hue /@ data[[All, 4]]], Axes -> True, BoxRatios -> {1, 1, 1/GoldenRatio}]

plotting - Mathematica: 3D plot based on combined 2D graphs

I have several sigmoidal fits to 3 different datasets, with mean fit predictions plus the 95% confidence limits (not symmetrical around the mean) and the actual data. I would now like to show these different 2D plots projected in 3D as in but then using proper perspective. In the link here they give some solutions to combine the plots using isometric perspective, but I would like to use proper 3 point perspective. Any thoughts? Also any way to show the mean points per time point for each series plus or minus the standard error on the mean would be cool too, either using points+vertical bars, or using spheres plus tubes. Below are some test data and the fit function I am using. Note that I am working on a logit(proportion) scale and that the final vertical scale is Log10(percentage). (* some test data *) data = Table[Null, {i, 4}]; data[[1]] = {{1, -5.8}, {2, -5.4}, {3, -0.8}, {4, -0.2}, {5, 4.6}, {1, -6.4}, {2, -5.6}, {3, -0.7}, {4, 0.04}, {5, 1.0}, {1, -6.8}, {2, -4.7}, {3, -1.