I am completely new to fipy. I am trying to solve the following set of pdes across two different domains using fipy. The variables are p,n and ψ and q,Dn,Dp,un,up,e and N are all constants. N and e change values from domain 1 to domain 2. Domain 2 is a rectangular domain stacked above a similar rectangular domain 1. The variables p and n are to be solved for in domain 1 and ψ is to be solved for in both the domains- domain1 and domain 2.
qDn∇2n − qun∇.(n∇ψ) = q(n-10**11)/10**(-6), in Domain 1
qDp∇2p + qup∇.(p∇ψ) = -q(p-10**21)/10**(-6), in Domain 1
∇2ψ = −(p − n- N)/e in Domain 1
e∇2ψ = 0 in Domain 2
The code that I have written for solving the pdes has been attached below.
! pip install pyparse
from fipy import *
L= 10**(-6)
h= 20**(-6)
tox= 0.1*10**(-6)
q=1.6*10**(-19)
un=0.14
up=0.045
Vth=0.026
Dp= up*Vth
Dn=un*Vth
p0= 10**(21)
n0= 10**(11)
e0=8.854*10**(-12)
mesh1= Grid2D(dx= L/100,nx=100,dy=h/200,ny=200)
mesh2= Grid2D(dx= L/100,nx=100,dy=tox/10,ny=10)
mesh3= mesh1+(mesh2+[[0],[h]]) # final mesh
x,y= mesh3.cellCenters
N= 10**21*(y<=h) # N changes from Domain 1 to Domain 2
e= 11.9*e0*(y<=h)+ 3.9*e0*(y>h) # e changes from Domain 1 to Domain 2
p1=CellVariable(name='hole',mesh=mesh3,hasOld=True,value=p0)
n1=CellVariable(name='electron',mesh=mesh3,hasOld=True,value=n0)
psi=CellVariable(name='potential',mesh=mesh3,hasOld=True,value=1)
p=p1*(y<=h) # for domain separation
n=n1*(y<=h) # for domain separation
mask1=((y==0))
mask2=(y==h)
mask3=(y==(h+tox))
# 1e50 is the large value
# boundary conditions are p(x,0)= p0, n(x,0)= n0, psi(x,0)= 0, p(x,h)= p0*exp(-psi/Vth), n(x,h)= n0*exp(psi/Vth), psi(h+tox)= 5
eq1=(DiffusionTerm(coeff=q*Dn,var=n)-ConvectionTerm(coeff=q*un*psi.faceGrad,var=n)==ImplicitSourceTerm(coeff=q*(n-10**5)/10**(-6),var=n)-ImplicitSourceTerm(mask1*1e50)-ImplicitSourceTerm(mask2*1e50)+mask1*1e50*n0+mask2*1e50*n0*numerix.exp(psi/Vth))
eq2=(DiffusionTerm(coeff=q*Dp,var=p)+ConvectionTerm(coeff=q*up*psi.faceGrad,var=p)==ImplicitSourceTerm(coeff=-q*(p-10**15)/10**(-6),var=p)-ImplicitSourceTerm(mask1*1e50)-ImplicitSourceTerm(mask2*1e50)+mask1*1e50*p0+mask2*1e50*p0*numerix.exp(psi/Vth))
eq3=(DiffusionTerm(coeff=e,var=psi)==ImplicitSourceTerm(coeff=-q*(p-n-N),var=psi)-ImplicitSourceTerm(mask1*1e50)-ImplicitSourceTerm(mask2*1e50)-ImplicitSouceTerm(mask3*1e50)+mask1*1e50*0+mask2*1e50*psi+mask3*1e50*5)
eq= eq1 & eq2 & eq3
for t in range (50):
p.updateOld()
n.updateOld()
psi.updateOld()
eq.solve(dt=10) # Since the equation does not have any transient term, a large value of dt=5 has been chosen
Now, I am getting the following error: ExplicitVariableError: Terms with explicit Variables cannot mix with Terms with implicit Variables.
I am also not sure whether the coupling between the equations actually work out considering the way I have written the code.
Please note that I am actually solving a MOSCAP using the above pdes.
Any help regarding this would be highly appreciated.
FiPy does not support this usage. One set of equations govern one set of variables defined on one domain. n, p, and psi must all exist on the same mesh in order to be able to write eq3.
Define all equations on mesh3.
Use an internal constraint on n and p.
You will not be able to use mesh1.facesTop and mesh1.facesBottom. Define the internal boundary parametrically.
Note: e should be moved to the diffusion coefficient in eq3. This is both physically correct (divergence of the electric displacement field goes like the charge) and necessary to account for the step in permittivity at the boundary between your subdomains.
Related
I have a question regarding the toolbox PyMacroFin.
Is handling simultaneous constraints possible? I mean for example we>1 && wr<0? (we and wr are two endogenous variables that need to be constrained at the same time)
You would do that as follows, following this page of the documentation:
m.constraint(‘we’,’>’,1, label=’one’)
m.constraint(‘wr’,’<’,0, label=’two’)
s = system([‘one’,’two’],m)
…
m.systems.append(s)
Basically, you just add the list of constraint labels to the system. The solution procedure should sort the systems such that if you have a system with both constraints, then another system with just one of the constraints, it will check for the combined constraints first, then check for the individual constraints. For example, you can do the following:
m.constraint(‘we’,’>’,1, label=’one’)
m.constraint(‘wr’,’<’,0, label=’two’)
s1 = system([‘one’,’two’],m)
…
m.systems.append(s1)
s2 = system([‘one’],m)
…
m.systems.append(s2)
If we <= 1 and wr >=0, then it will switch to system s1. If however we <= 1 and wr < 0, it will switch to system 2.
I have been trying to get into python optimization, and I have found that pyomo is probably the way to go; I had some experience with GUROBI as a student, but of course that is no longer possible, so I have to look into the open source options.
I basically want to perform an non-linear mixed integer problem in which I will minimized a certain ratio. The problem itself is setting up a power purchase agreement (PPA) in a renewable energy scenario. Depending on the electricity generated, you will have to either buy or sell electricity acording to the PPA.
The only starting data is the generation; the PPA is the main decision variable, but I will need others. "buy", "sell", "b1" and "b2" are unknown without the PPA value. These are the equations:
Equations that rule the problem (by hand).
Using pyomo, I was trying to set up the problem as:
# Dataframe with my Generation information:
January = Data['Full_Data'][(Data['Full_Data']['Month'] == 1) & (Data['Full_Data']['Year'] == 2011)]
Gen = January['Producible (MWh)']
Time = len(Generacion)
M=100
# Model variables and definition:
m = ConcreteModel()
m.IDX = range(time)
m.PPA = Var(initialize = 2.0, bounds =(1,7))
m.compra = Var(m.IDX, bounds = (0, None))
m.venta = Var(m.IDX, bounds = (0, None))
m.b1 = Var(m.IDX, within = Binary)
m.b2 = Var(m.IDX, within = Binary)
And then, the constraint; only the first one, as I was already getting errors:
m.b1_rule = Constraint(
expr = (((Gen[i] - PPA)/M for i in m.IDX) <= m.b1[i])
)
which gives me the error:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AttributeError Traceback (most recent call last)
<ipython-input-5-5d5f5584ebca> in <module>
1 m.b1_rule = Constraint(
----> 2 expr = (((Generacion[i] - PPA)/M for i in m.IDX) <= m.b1[i])
3 )
pyomo\core\expr\numvalue.pyx in pyomo.core.expr.numvalue.NumericValue.__ge__()
pyomo\core\expr\logical_expr.pyx in pyomo.core.expr.logical_expr._generate_relational_expression()
AttributeError: 'generator' object has no attribute 'is_expression_type'
I honestly have no idea what this means. I feel like this should be a simple problem, but I am strugling with the syntax. I basically have to apply a constraint to each individual data from "Generation", there is no sum involved; all constraints are 1-to-1 contraints set so that the physical energy requirements make sense.
How do I set up the constraints like this?
Thank you very much
You have a couple things to fix. First, the error you are getting is because you have "extra parenthesis" around an expression that python is trying to convert to a generator. So, step 1 is to remove the outer parenthesis, but that will not solve your issue.
You said you want to generate this constraint "for each" value of your index. Any time you want to generate copies of a constraint "for each" you will need to either do that by making a constraint list and adding to it with some kind of loop, or use a function-rule combination. There are examples of each in the pyomo documentation and plenty on this site (I have posted a ton if you look at some of my posts.) I would suggest the function-rule combo and you should end up with something like:
def my_constr(m, i):
return m.Gen[i] - m.PPA <= m.b1[i] * M
m.C1 = Constraint(m.IDX, rule=my_constr)
I am working on a code to solve for the optimum combination of diameter size of number of pipelines. The objective function is to find the least sum of pressure drops in six pipelines.
As I have 15 choices of discrete diameter sizes which are [2,4,6,8,12,16,20,24,30,36,40,42,50,60,80] that can be used for any of the six pipelines that I have in the system, the list of possible solutions becomes 15^6 which is equal to 11,390,625
To solve the problem, I am using Mixed-Integer Linear Programming using Pulp package. I am able to find the solution for the combination of same diameters (e.g. [2,2,2,2,2,2] or [4,4,4,4,4,4]) but what I need is to go through all combinations (e.g. [2,4,2,2,4,2] or [4,2,4,2,4,2] to find the minimum. I attempted to do this but the process is taking a very long time to go through all combinations. Is there a faster way to do this ?
Note that I cannot calculate the pressure drop for each pipeline as the choice of diameter will affect the total pressure drop in the system. Therefore, at anytime, I need to calculate the pressure drop of each combination in the system.
I also need to constraint the problem such that the rate/cross section of pipeline area > 2.
Your help is much appreciated.
The first attempt for my code is the following:
from pulp import *
import random
import itertools
import numpy
rate = 5000
numberOfPipelines = 15
def pressure(diameter):
diameterList = numpy.tile(diameter,numberOfPipelines)
pressure = 0.0
for pipeline in range(numberOfPipelines):
pressure += rate/diameterList[pipeline]
return pressure
diameterList = [2,4,6,8,12,16,20,24,30,36,40,42,50,60,80]
pipelineIds = range(0,numberOfPipelines)
pipelinePressures = {}
for diameter in diameterList:
pressures = []
for pipeline in range(numberOfPipelines):
pressures.append(pressure(diameter))
pressureList = dict(zip(pipelineIds,pressures))
pipelinePressures[diameter] = pressureList
print 'pipepressure', pipelinePressures
prob = LpProblem("Warehouse Allocation",LpMinimize)
use_diameter = LpVariable.dicts("UseDiameter", diameterList, cat=LpBinary)
use_pipeline = LpVariable.dicts("UsePipeline", [(i,j) for i in pipelineIds for j in diameterList], cat = LpBinary)
## Objective Function:
prob += lpSum(pipelinePressures[j][i] * use_pipeline[(i,j)] for i in pipelineIds for j in diameterList)
## At least each pipeline must be connected to a diameter:
for i in pipelineIds:
prob += lpSum(use_pipeline[(i,j)] for j in diameterList) ==1
## The diameter is activiated if at least one pipelines is assigned to it:
for j in diameterList:
for i in pipelineIds:
prob += use_diameter[j] >= lpSum(use_pipeline[(i,j)])
## run the solution
prob.solve()
print("Status:", LpStatus[prob.status])
for i in diameterList:
if use_diameter[i].varValue> pressureTest:
print("Diameter Size",i)
for v in prob.variables():
print(v.name,"=",v.varValue)
This what I did for the combination part which took really long time.
xList = np.array(list(itertools.product(diameterList,repeat = numberOfPipelines)))
print len(xList)
for combination in xList:
pressures = []
for pipeline in range(numberOfPipelines):
pressures.append(pressure(combination))
pressureList = dict(zip(pipelineIds,pressures))
pipelinePressures[combination] = pressureList
print 'pipelinePressures',pipelinePressures
I would iterate through all combinations, I think you would run into memory problems otherwise trying to model ALL combinations in a MIP.
If you iterate through the problems perhaps using the multiprocessing library to use all cores, it shouldn't take long just remember only to hold information on the best combination so far, and not to try and generate all combinations at once and then evaluate them.
If the problem gets bigger you should consider Dynamic Programming Algorithms or use pulp with column generation.
I dont know if this question has been asked before in SO, I will go ahead and post it here, I am attempting to solve a simple system with a PID controller, my system of differential equations are given below. I am basically attempting to code very basic PID algorithm. The structure of my control u depends on both derivative and integral of error term. I dont have any problem with the derivative term, it is the integral term that is creating problem in my code. The problem crops up when I assign s=0 in the beginning
and use it in my function as described in my code below. Is there a way to bypass it? I tried assigning s and told as global variables, but it didnt solve my problem. In a nutshell what I am doing is- I am adding state x1 every time and multiplying by dt(which is denoted by t-told).
Kindly help me iron out this issue, PFA my code attached below.
import numpy as np
from scipy.integrate import ode
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
plt.style.use('bmh')
t0=0
y0=[0.1,0.2]
kp,kd,ki=2,0.5,0.8
s,told=0,0
def pid(t,Y):
x1,x2=Y[0],Y[1]
e=x1-1
de=x2
s=(x1+s)
integral=s*(t-told)
told=t
#ie=
u=kp*e+kd*de+ki*integral
x1dot=x2
x2dot=u-5*x1-2*x2
return[x1dot,x2dot]
solver=ode(pid).set_integrator('dopri5',rtol=1e-6,method='bdf',nsteps=1e5,max_step=1e-3)
solver.set_initial_value(y0,t0)
t1=10
dt=5e-3
sol = [ [yy] for yy in y0 ]
t=[t0]
while solver.successful() and solver.t<t1:
solver.integrate(solver.t+dt)
for k in range(2): sol[k].append(solver.y[k]);
t.append(solver.t)
print(len(sol[0]))
print(len(t))
x1=np.array(sol[0])
x2=np.array(sol[1])
e=x1-1
de=x2
u=kp*e+kd*de
for k in range(2):
if k==0:
plt.subplot(2,1,k+1)
plt.plot(t,sol[k],label='x1')
plt.plot(t,sol[k+1],label='x2')
plt.legend(loc='lower right')
else:
plt.subplot(2,1,k+1)
plt.plot(t,u)
plt.show()
You are making assumptions on the solver and the time steps that it visits that are not justified. With your hacking of the integral, even if it were mathematically sound (it should look like integral = integral + e*(t-told), which gives an order 1 integration method), you reduce the order of any integration method, probably down to 1, if you are lucky only to order 2.
A mathematically correct method to implement this system is to introduce a third variable x3 for the integral of e, that is, the derivative of x3 is e. That the correct order 1 system has to be of dimension 3 can be read of the fact that (eliminating e) your system has 3 differentiation/integration operations. With that your system becomes
def pid(t,Y):
x1, x2, x3 =Y
e=x1-1
x1dot = x2
edot = x1dot
x3dot = e
u=kp*e+kd*edot+ki*x3
x2dot=u-5*x1-2*x2
return[x1dot, x2dot, x3dot]
Note that there are no global dynamic variables necessary, only the constants (which could also be passed as parameters, whatever seems more efficient or readable).
Now you will also need an initial value for x3, it was not visible from the system what the integration variable would have to be, your code seems to suggest 0.
First of all you need to include "s" Variable into the pid function.
'
def pid(s, t, Y): ...
'
Easiest solution I can see right now is to create a class with s and told as properties of this class:
class PIDSolver:
def __init__(self)
self.t0=0
self.y0=[0.1,0.2]
self.kp,self.kd,self.ki=2,0.5,0.8
self.s,self.told=0,0
def pid(t,Y):
x1,x2=Y[0],Y[1]
e=x1-1
de=x2
self.s=(x1+self.s)
integral=self.s*(t-self.told)
self.told=t
#ie=
u=self.kp*e+self.kd*de+self.ki*integral
x1dot=x2
x2dot=u-5*x1-2*x2
return[x1dot,x2dot]
For the first part of your problem. Use pidsolver = PIDSolver() in the next part of your solution.
I solved this problem myself by using set_f_params() method and passing a list in itz argument. Also I passed a 3rd argument in pid() i.e pid(t,Y,arg). And lastly I assigned s,told=arg[0],arg[1].
I am working on some very large scale linear programming problems. (Matrices are currently roughly 1000x1000 and these are the 'mini' ones.)
I thought that I had the program running successfully, only I have realized that I am getting some very unintuitive answers. For example, let's say I were to maximize x+y+z subject to a set of constraints x+y<10 and y+z <5. I run this and get an optimal solution. Then, I run the same equation but with different constraints: x+y<20 and y+z<5. Yet in the second iteration, my maximization decreases!
I have painstakingly gone through and assured myself that the constraints are loading correctly.
Does anyone know what the problem might be?
I found something in the documentation about lpx_check_kkt which seems to tell you when your solution is likely to be correct or high confidence (or low confidence for that matter), but I don't know how to use it.
I made an attempt and got the error message lpx_check_kkt not defined.
I am adding some code as an addendum in hopes that someone can find an error.
The result of this is that it claims an optimal solution has been found. And yet every time I raise an upper bound, it gets less optimal.
I have confirmed that my bounds are going up and not down.
size = 10000000+1
ia = intArray(size)
ja = intArray(size)
ar = doubleArray(size)
prob = glp_create_prob()
glp_set_prob_name(prob, "sample")
glp_set_obj_dir(prob, GLP_MAX)
glp_add_rows(prob, Num_constraints)
for x in range(Num_constraints):
Variables.add_variables(Constraints_for_simplex)
glp_set_row_name(prob, x+1, Variables.variers[x])
glp_set_row_bnds(prob, x+1, GLP_UP, 0, Constraints_for_simplex[x][1])
print 'we set the row_bnd for', x+1,' to ',Constraints_for_simplex[x][1]
glp_add_cols(prob, len(All_Loops))
for x in range(len(All_Loops)):
glp_set_col_name(prob, x+1, "".join(["x",str(x)]))
glp_set_col_bnds(prob,x+1,GLP_LO,0,0)
glp_set_obj_coef(prob,x+1,1)
for x in range(1,len(All_Loops)+1):
z=Constraints_for_simplex[0][0][x-1]
ia[x] = 1; ja[x] = x; ar[x] = z
x=len(All_Loops)+1
while x<Num_constraints + len(All_Loops):
for y in range(2, Num_constraints+1):
z=Constraints_for_simplex[y-1][0][0]
ia[x] = y; ja[x] =1 ; ar[x] = z
x+=1
x=Num_constraints+len(All_Loops)
while x <len(All_Loops)*(Num_constraints-1):
for z in range(2,len(All_Loops)+1):
for y in range(2,Num_constraints+1):
if x<len(All_Loops)*Num_constraints+1:
q = Constraints_for_simplex[y-1][0][z-1]
ia[x] = y ; ja[x]=z; ar[x] = q
x+=1
glp_load_matrix(prob, len(All_Loops)*Num_constraints, ia, ja, ar)
glp_exact(prob,None)
Z = glp_get_obj_val(prob)
Start by solving your problematic instances with different solvers and checking the objective function value. If you can export your model to .mps format (I don't know how to do this with GLPK, sorry), you can upload the mps file to http://www.neos-server.org/neos/solvers/index.html and solve it with several different LP solvers.