Dear All Thanks for the answers.
To give more information's on what I'm doing (That's quite new I confess), I'm performing a (basic) finite element calculation with beams using sparse matrix (stiffness matrix K and mass matrix M). [u,v] = eigs(K((ddl_elem+1):$,(ddl_elem+1):$),M((ddl_elem+1):$,(ddl_elem+1):$),n,"SM"); Nota: ddl means dof I'm calculated first the natural frequencies using (K - omega^2.M).x=0 ... the pulse (or circular frequencies) are no more and no less than the eigenvalues of the above system (u = omega^2). Just a "mechanical" remark: since the beam is clamped in one side (and free on the tip), it is absolutely normal that you find twice the same natural frequency (1rst mode in one direction, the second one in a new direction at 90°) .... I've been really surprised to find it, but happy at the same time ... The origin of my question was: since it obvious that the results are strongly sensitive to the "units" (i.e. the numbers), I'm wondering if there is a way to control the accuracy of the eigenvalues calculation using eigs keywords ... In any way, thanks for the debate Paul -----Message d'origine----- De : users [mailto:[email protected]] De la part de [email protected] Envoyé : 17 June 2015 19:50 À : International users mailing list for Scilab. Objet : Re: [Scilab-users] eigs calculation Paul: Did you consider checking the condition number of the matrix? What I sometimes do, for problems that are ill conditioned by their very nature, is normalise the entries in an attempt to be as far away from singularity (i.e. to keep the rows and columns as orthogonal as possible) and then do a check on the condition number to see if there is an improvement. The lower the condition number the better. Once your calculations are done you can convert back to the un-normalised entries, does improve a bit when inverting matrices of ill-conditioned problems such as target-motion analysis. I'm willing to bet that the condition number of the second matrix is a bit lower than of the first one. Also, I'm noticing that there are four double poles, possibly six in total (resonnances 5 and 6, and 11 and 12), in the second calculation. You knowing your system, that could provide you with some hints as to which calculation to trust. Let me know how you make out. Regards, Roger. ___________________________ Dr. Roger Cormier, P.Eng. Le mer. 17 juin 2015 à 11:55, [email protected] a écrit : > On 2015-06-17 06:50, Carrico, Paul wrote: >> Dear All, >> I'm performing a (mechanical) calculation using the eigs and I've been >> noticing that the results are strongly sensitive on the unit system >> I'm using; I can understand that high numbers can lead to some >> numerical "issues" . >> Is there a way to increase the accuracy ? >> Paul >> PS: the 2 types of results >> _NB_: >> 1 (MPa) = 1E6 (Pa) >> 1 (mm) = 1E-3 (m) >> 1 (Kg/m^3) = 1E12 (T/mm^3) >> [u,v] = >> eigs(K((ddl_elem+1):$,(ddl_elem+1):$),M((ddl_elem+1):$,(ddl_elem+1):$),n,"SM"); >> a) calculation 1 in Pa, m, Kg/m^3 >> Natural frequency calculation: >> - Resonance 1 : 497.956 Hz >> - Resonance 2 : 3120.64 Hz >> - Resonance 3 : 5277.8 Hz >> - Resonance 4 : 6948.69 Hz >> - Resonance 5 : 8737.88 Hz >> - Resonance 6 : 15832.1 Hz >> - Resonance 7 : 17122.8 Hz >> - Resonance 8 : 20847.8 Hz >> - Resonance 9 : 26382.5 Hz >> - Resonance 10 : 28305.1 Hz >> - Resonance 11 : 34752 Hz >> - Resonance 12 : 36926.4 Hz >> b) Calculation in MPa, mm, T/mm^3 .. >> Natural frequency calculation: >> - Resonance 1 : 497.955 Hz >> - Resonance 2 : 497.956 Hz >> - Resonance 3 : 3120.59 Hz >> - Resonance 4 : 3120.64 Hz >> - Resonance 5 : 6948.69 Hz >> - Resonance 6 : 7463.93 Hz >> - Resonance 7 : 8737.56 Hz >> - Resonance 8 : 8737.88 Hz >> - Resonance 9 : 17121.6 Hz >> - Resonance 10 : 17122.8 Hz >> - Resonance 11 : 20847.8 Hz >> - Resonance 12 : 22390 Hz > > Hi Paul: > > I can't tell you about the innards of Scilab specifically, but eigenvalue > calculation in general can be very sensitive to numerical issues. If you're > entering the data by hand or otherwise truncating the source data your entire > difference in results may just be from rounding error in your source data. > > If you're starting from one set of source data and multiplying by conversion > constants, then you can try changing the tolerance (if it's not in the > function then there's a global one, called, I think, %TOL). > > There are ways to make the matrices more numerically stable. I am absolutely > positively not an expert on this, but I think that the more you can make your > matrix into something with a band of non-zero numbers around the main > diagonal and zeros elsewhere, the more stable the problem will be. > > If mechanical systems are like control systems, then the numerical stability > of the matrix that describes the system dynamics is just a reflection of the > real sensitivity of the real system to manufacturing variations -- it may be > that, in a group of several physical units all assembled to the same > specification, you'll find that much variation in the real world! > > _______________________________________________ > users mailing list > [email protected] > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.scilab.org_mailman_listinfo_users&d=AwIF-g&c=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w&r=4TCz--8bXfJhZZvIxJAemAJyz7Vfx78XvgYu3LN7eLo&m=X5rGSmMzj_mrDPhlxODiYEfNco7jW0285o_vP15-sDI&s=AUkkoXcGhr1-zgfahFwMmtOJuuCDaaCeKtS2-qHM8NQ&e= > _______________________________________________ users mailing list [email protected] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.scilab.org_mailman_listinfo_users&d=AwIF-g&c=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w&r=4TCz--8bXfJhZZvIxJAemAJyz7Vfx78XvgYu3LN7eLo&m=X5rGSmMzj_mrDPhlxODiYEfNco7jW0285o_vP15-sDI&s=AUkkoXcGhr1-zgfahFwMmtOJuuCDaaCeKtS2-qHM8NQ&e= EXPORT CONTROL : Cet email ne contient pas de données techniques This email does not contain technical data _______________________________________________ users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users
