Develop Reference

Poincare Section of a system of second order odes

It is the first time I am trying to write a Poincare section code at Python.
I borrowed the piece of code from here:
https://github.com/williamgilpin/rk4/blob/master/rk4_demo.py
and I have tried to run it for my system of second order coupled odes. The problem is that I do not see what I was expecting to. Actually, I need the Poincare section when x=0 and px>0.
I believe that my implementation is not the best out there. I would like to:
Improve the way that the initial conditions are chosen.
Apply the correct conditions (x=0 and px>0) in order to acquire the correct Poincare section.
Create one plot with all the collected poincare section data, not four separate ones.
I would appreciate any help.
This is the code:
from matplotlib.pyplot import *
from scipy import *
from numpy import *
# a simple Runge-Kutta integrator for multiple dependent variables and one independent variable
def rungekutta4(yprime, time, y0):
# yprime is a list of functions, y0 is a list of initial values of y
# time is a list of t-values at which solutions are computed
#
# Dependency: numpy
N = len(time)
y = array([thing*ones(N) for thing in y0]).T
for ii in xrange(N-1):
dt = time[ii+1] - time[ii]
k1 = dt*yprime(y[ii], time[ii])
k2 = dt*yprime(y[ii] + 0.5*k1, time[ii] + 0.5*dt)
k3 = dt*yprime(y[ii] + 0.5*k2, time[ii] + 0.5*dt)
k4 = dt*yprime(y[ii] + k3, time[ii+1])
y[ii+1] = y[ii] + (k1 + 2.0*(k2 + k3) + k4)/6.0
return y
# Miscellaneous functions
n= 1.0/3.0
kappa1 = 0.1
kappa2 = 0.1
kappa3 = 0.1
def total_energy(valpair):
(x, y, px, py) = tuple(valpair)
return .5*(px**2 + py**2) + (1.0/(1.0*(n+1)))*(kappa1*np.absolute(x)**(n+1)+kappa2*np.absolute(y-x)**(n+1)+kappa3*np.absolute(y)**(n+1))
def pqdot(valpair, tval):
# input: [x, y, px, py], t
# takes a pair of x and y values and returns \dot{p} according to the Hamiltonian
(x, y, px, py) = tuple(valpair)
return np.array([px, py, -kappa1*np.sign(x)*np.absolute(x)**n+kappa2*np.sign(y-x)*np.absolute(y-x)**n, kappa2*np.sign(y-x)*np.absolute(y-x)**n-kappa3*np.sign(y)*np.absolute(y)**n]).T
def findcrossings(data, data1):
# returns indices in 1D data set where the data crossed zero. Useful for generating Poincare map at 0
prb = list()
for ii in xrange(len(data)-1):
if (((data[ii] > 0) and (data[ii+1] < 0)) or ((data[ii] < 0) and (data[ii+1] > 0))) and data1[ii] > 0:
prb.append(ii)
return array(prb)
t = linspace(0, 1000.0, 100000)
print ("step size is " + str(t[1]-t[0]))
# Representative initial conditions for E=1
E = 1
x0=0
y0=0
init_cons = [[x0, y0, np.sqrt(2*E-(1.0*i/10.0)*(1.0*i/10.0)-2.0/(n+1)*(kappa1*np.absolute(x0)**(n+1)+kappa2*np.absolute(y0-x0)**(n+1)+kappa3*np.absolute(y0)**(n+1))), 1.0*i/10.0] for i in range(-10,11)]
outs = list()
for con in init_cons:
outs.append( rungekutta4(pqdot, t, con) )
# plot the results
fig1 = figure(1)
for ii in xrange(4):
subplot(2, 2, ii+1)
plot(outs[ii][:,1],outs[ii][:,3])
ylabel("py")
xlabel("y")
title("Full trajectory projected onto the plane")
fig1.suptitle('Full trajectories E = 1', fontsize=10)
# Plot Poincare sections at x=0 and px>0
fig2 = figure(2)
for ii in xrange(4):
subplot(2, 2, ii+1)
xcrossings = findcrossings(outs[ii][:,0], outs[ii][:,3])
yints = [.5*(outs[ii][cross, 1] + outs[ii][cross+1, 1]) for cross in xcrossings]
pyints = [.5*(outs[ii][cross, 3] + outs[ii][cross+1, 3]) for cross in xcrossings]
plot(yints, pyints,'.')
ylabel("py")
xlabel("y")
title("Poincare section x = 0")
fig2.suptitle('Poincare Sections E = 1', fontsize=10)
show()

You need to compute the derivatives of the Hamiltonian correctly. The derivative of |y-x|^n for x is
n*(x-y)*|x-y|^(n-2)=n*sign(x-y)*|x-y|^(n-1)
and the derivative for y is almost, but not exactly (as in your code), the same,
n*(y-x)*|x-y|^(n-2)=n*sign(y-x)*|x-y|^(n-1),
note the sign difference. With this correction you can take larger time steps, with correct linear interpolation probably even larger ones, to obtain the images
I changed the integration of the ODE to
t = linspace(0, 1000.0, 2000+1)
...
E_kin = E-total_energy([x0,y0,0,0])
init_cons = [[x0, y0, (2*E_kin-py**2)**0.5, py] for py in np.linspace(-10,10,8)]
outs = [ odeint(pqdot, con, t, atol=1e-9, rtol=1e-8) ) for con in init_cons[:8] ]
Obviously the number and parametrization of initial conditions may change.
The computation and display of the zero-crossings was changed to
def refine_crossing(a,b):
tf = -a[0]/a[2]
while abs(b[0])>1e-6:
b = odeint(pqdot, a, [0,tf], atol=1e-8, rtol=1e-6)[-1];
# Newton step using that b[0]=x(tf) and b[2]=x'(tf)
tf -= b[0]/b[2]
return [ b[1], b[3] ]
# Plot Poincare sections at x=0 and px>0
fig2 = figure(2)
for ii in xrange(8):
#subplot(4, 2, ii+1)
xcrossings = findcrossings(outs[ii][:,0], outs[ii][:,3])
ycrossings = [ refine_crossing(outs[ii][cross], outs[ii][cross+1]) for cross in xcrossings]
yints, pyints = array(ycrossings).T
plot(yints, pyints,'.')
ylabel("py")
xlabel("y")
title("Poincare section x = 0")
and evaluating the result of a longer integration interval

ValueError: x and y must have the same first dimension

I am trying to implement a finite difference approximation to solve the Heat Equation, u_t = k * u_{xx}, in Python using NumPy.
Here is a copy of the code I am running:
## This program is to implement a Finite Difference method approximation
## to solve the Heat Equation, u_t = k * u_xx,
## in 1D w/out sources & on a finite interval 0 < x < L. The PDE
## is subject to B.C: u(0,t) = u(L,t) = 0,
## and the I.C: u(x,0) = f(x).
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
# parameters
L = 1 # legnth of the rod
T = 10 # terminal time
N = 10
M = 100
s = 0.25
# uniform mesh
x_init = 0
x_end = L
dx = float(x_end - x_init) / N
x = np.arange(x_init, x_end, dx)
x[0] = x_init
# time discretization
t_init = 0
t_end = T
dt = float(t_end - t_init) / M
t = np.arange(t_init, t_end, dt)
t[0] = t_init
# Boundary Conditions
for m in xrange(0, M):
t[m] = m * dt
# Initial Conditions
for j in xrange(0, N):
x[j] = j * dx
# definition of solution u(x,t) to u_t = k * u_xx
u = np.zeros((N, M+1)) # array to store values of the solution
# Finite Difference Scheme:
u[:,0] = x**2 #initial condition
for m in xrange(0, M):
for j in xrange(1, N-1):
if j == 1:
u[j-1,m] = 0 # Boundary condition
elif j == N-1:
u[j+1,m] = 0
else:
u[j,m+1] = u[j,m] + s * ( u[j+1,m] -
2 * u[j,m] + u[j-1,m] )
print u, #t, x
plt.plot(u, t)
#plt.show()
I think my code is working properly and it is producing an output. I want to plot the output of the solution u versus t (my time vector). If I can plot the graph then I am able to check if my numerical approximation agrees with the expected phenomena for the Heat Equation. However, I am getting the error that "x and y must have same first dimension". How can I correct this issue?
An additional question: Am I better off attempting to make an animation with matplotlib.animation instead of using matplotlib.plyplot ???
Thanks so much for any and all help! It is very greatly appreciated!

Okay so I had a "brain dump" and tried plotting u vs. t sort of forgetting that u, being the solution to the Heat Equation (u_t = k * u_{xx}), is defined as u(x,t) so it has values for time. I made the following correction to my code:
print u #t, x
plt.plot(u)
plt.show()
And now my programming is finally displaying an image. And here it is:
It is absolutely beautiful, isn't it?

Best way to interpolate a numpy.ndarray along an axis

I have 4-dimensional data, say for the temperature, in an numpy.ndarray.
The shape of the array is (ntime, nheight_in, nlat, nlon).
I have corresponding 1D arrays for each of the dimensions that tell me which time, height, latitude, and longitude a certain value corresponds to, for this example I need height_in giving the height in metres.
Now I need to bring it onto a different height dimension, height_out, with a different length.
The following seems to do what I want:
ntime, nheight_in, nlat, nlon = t_in.shape
nheight_out = len(height_out)
t_out = np.empty((ntime, nheight_out, nlat, nlon))
for time in range(ntime):
for lat in range(nlat):
for lon in range(nlon):
t_out[time, :, lat, lon] = np.interp(
height_out, height_in, t[time, :, lat, lon]
)
But with 3 nested loops, and lots of switching between python and numpy, I don't think this is the best way to do it.
Any suggestions on how to improve this? Thanks

scipy's interp1d can help:
import numpy as np
from scipy.interpolate import interp1d
ntime, nheight_in, nlat, nlon = (10, 20, 30, 40)
heights = np.linspace(0, 1, nheight_in)
t_in = np.random.normal(size=(ntime, nheight_in, nlat, nlon))
f_out = interp1d(heights, t_in, axis=1)
nheight_out = 50
new_heights = np.linspace(0, 1, nheight_out)
t_out = f_out(new_heights)

I was looking for a similar function that works with irregularly spaced coordinates, and ended up writing my own function. As far as I see, the interpolation is handled nicely and the performance in terms of memory and speed is also quite good. I thought I'd share it here in case anyone else comes across this question looking for a similar function:
import numpy as np
import warnings
def interp_along_axis(y, x, newx, axis, inverse=False, method='linear'):
""" Interpolate vertical profiles, e.g. of atmospheric variables
using vectorized numpy operations
This function assumes that the x-xoordinate increases monotonically
ps:
* Updated to work with irregularly spaced x-coordinate.
* Updated to work with irregularly spaced newx-coordinate
* Updated to easily inverse the direction of the x-coordinate
* Updated to fill with nans outside extrapolation range
* Updated to include a linear interpolation method as well
(it was initially written for a cubic function)
Peter Kalverla
March 2018
--------------------
More info:
Algorithm from: http://www.paulinternet.nl/?page=bicubic
It approximates y = f(x) = ax^3 + bx^2 + cx + d
where y may be an ndarray input vector
Returns f(newx)
The algorithm uses the derivative f'(x) = 3ax^2 + 2bx + c
and uses the fact that:
f(0) = d
f(1) = a + b + c + d
f'(0) = c
f'(1) = 3a + 2b + c
Rewriting this yields expressions for a, b, c, d:
a = 2f(0) - 2f(1) + f'(0) + f'(1)
b = -3f(0) + 3f(1) - 2f'(0) - f'(1)
c = f'(0)
d = f(0)
These can be evaluated at two neighbouring points in x and
as such constitute the piecewise cubic interpolator.
"""
# View of x and y with axis as first dimension
if inverse:
_x = np.moveaxis(x, axis, 0)[::-1, ...]
_y = np.moveaxis(y, axis, 0)[::-1, ...]
_newx = np.moveaxis(newx, axis, 0)[::-1, ...]
else:
_y = np.moveaxis(y, axis, 0)
_x = np.moveaxis(x, axis, 0)
_newx = np.moveaxis(newx, axis, 0)
# Sanity checks
if np.any(_newx[0] < _x[0]) or np.any(_newx[-1] > _x[-1]):
# raise ValueError('This function cannot extrapolate')
warnings.warn("Some values are outside the interpolation range. "
"These will be filled with NaN")
if np.any(np.diff(_x, axis=0) < 0):
raise ValueError('x should increase monotonically')
if np.any(np.diff(_newx, axis=0) < 0):
raise ValueError('newx should increase monotonically')
# Cubic interpolation needs the gradient of y in addition to its values
if method == 'cubic':
# For now, simply use a numpy function to get the derivatives
# This produces the largest memory overhead of the function and
# could alternatively be done in passing.
ydx = np.gradient(_y, axis=0, edge_order=2)
# This will later be concatenated with a dynamic '0th' index
ind = [i for i in np.indices(_y.shape[1:])]
# Allocate the output array
original_dims = _y.shape
newdims = list(original_dims)
newdims[0] = len(_newx)
newy = np.zeros(newdims)
# set initial bounds
i_lower = np.zeros(_x.shape[1:], dtype=int)
i_upper = np.ones(_x.shape[1:], dtype=int)
x_lower = _x[0, ...]
x_upper = _x[1, ...]
for i, xi in enumerate(_newx):
# Start at the 'bottom' of the array and work upwards
# This only works if x and newx increase monotonically
# Update bounds where necessary and possible
needs_update = (xi > x_upper) & (i_upper+1<len(_x))
# print x_upper.max(), np.any(needs_update)
while np.any(needs_update):
i_lower = np.where(needs_update, i_lower+1, i_lower)
i_upper = i_lower + 1
x_lower = _x[[i_lower]+ind]
x_upper = _x[[i_upper]+ind]
# Check again
needs_update = (xi > x_upper) & (i_upper+1<len(_x))
# Express the position of xi relative to its neighbours
xj = (xi-x_lower)/(x_upper - x_lower)
# Determine where there is a valid interpolation range
within_bounds = (_x[0, ...] < xi) & (xi < _x[-1, ...])
if method == 'linear':
f0, f1 = _y[[i_lower]+ind], _y[[i_upper]+ind]
a = f1 - f0
b = f0
newy[i, ...] = np.where(within_bounds, a*xj+b, np.nan)
elif method=='cubic':
f0, f1 = _y[[i_lower]+ind], _y[[i_upper]+ind]
df0, df1 = ydx[[i_lower]+ind], ydx[[i_upper]+ind]
a = 2*f0 - 2*f1 + df0 + df1
b = -3*f0 + 3*f1 - 2*df0 - df1
c = df0
d = f0
newy[i, ...] = np.where(within_bounds, a*xj**3 + b*xj**2 + c*xj + d, np.nan)
else:
raise ValueError("invalid interpolation method"
"(choose 'linear' or 'cubic')")
if inverse:
newy = newy[::-1, ...]
return np.moveaxis(newy, 0, axis)
And this is a small example to test it:
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from scipy.interpolate import interp1d as scipy1d
# toy coordinates and data
nx, ny, nz = 25, 30, 10
x = np.arange(nx)
y = np.arange(ny)
z = np.tile(np.arange(nz), (nx,ny,1)) + np.random.randn(nx, ny, nz)*.1
testdata = np.random.randn(nx,ny,nz) # x,y,z
# Desired z-coordinates (must be between bounds of z)
znew = np.tile(np.linspace(2,nz-2,50), (nx,ny,1)) + np.random.randn(nx, ny, 50)*0.01
# Inverse the coordinates for testing
z = z[..., ::-1]
znew = znew[..., ::-1]
# Now use own routine
ynew = interp_along_axis(testdata, z, znew, axis=2, inverse=True)
# Check some random profiles
for i in range(5):
randx = np.random.randint(nx)
randy = np.random.randint(ny)
checkfunc = scipy1d(z[randx, randy], testdata[randx,randy], kind='cubic')
checkdata = checkfunc(znew)
fig, ax = plt.subplots()
ax.plot(testdata[randx, randy], z[randx, randy], 'x', label='original data')
ax.plot(checkdata[randx, randy], znew[randx, randy], label='scipy')
ax.plot(ynew[randx, randy], znew[randx, randy], '--', label='Peter')
ax.legend()
plt.show()

Following the criteria of numpy.interp, one can assign the left/right bounds to the points outside the range adding this lines after within_bounds = ...
out_lbound = (xi <= _x[0,...])
out_rbound = (_x[-1,...] <= xi)
and
newy[i, out_lbound] = _y[0, out_lbound]
newy[i, out_rbound] = _y[-1, out_rbound]
after newy[i, ...] = ....
If I understood well the strategy used by #Peter9192, I think the changes are in the same line. I've checked a little bit, but maybe some strange case could not work properly.

Specify the shift for numpy.correlate

I wonder if there is a possibility to specify the shift expressed by k variable for the cross-correlation of two 1D arrays. Because with the numpy.correlate function and its mode parameter set to 'full' I will get cross-correlate coefficients for each k shift for whole length of the taken array (assuming that both arrays are the same size). Let me show you what I mean exactly on below example:
import numpy as np
# Define signal 1.
signal_1 = np.array([1, 2 ,3])
# Define signal 2.
signal_2 = np.array([1, 2, 3])
# Other definitions.
Xi = signal_1
Yi = signal_2
N = np.size(Xi)
k = 3
Xs = np.average(Xi)
Ys = np.average(Yi)
# Cross-covariance coefficient function.
def crossCovariance(Xi, Yi, N, k, Xs, Ys, forCorrelation = False):
autoCov = 0
for i in np.arange(0, N-k):
autoCov += ((Xi[i+k])-Xs)*(Yi[i]-Ys)
if forCorrelation == True:
return autoCov/N
else:
return (1/(N-1))*autoCov
# Expected value function.
def E(X, P):
expectedValue = 0
for i in np.arange(0, np.size(X)):
expectedValue += X[i] * (P[i] / np.size(X))
return expectedValue
# Cross-correlation coefficient function.
def crossCorrelation(Xi, Yi, k):
# Calculate the covariance coefficient.
cov = crossCovariance(Xi, Yi, N, k, Xs, Ys, forCorrelation = True)
# Calculate standard deviations.
EX = E(Xi, np.ones(np.size(Xi)))
SDX = (E((Xi - EX) ** 2, np.ones(np.size(Xi)))) ** (1/2)
EY = E(Yi, np.ones(np.size(Yi)))
SDY = (E((Yi - EY) ** 2, np.ones(np.size(Yi)))) ** (1/2)
# Calculate correlation coefficient.
return cov / (SDX * SDY)
# Express cross-covariance or cross-correlation function in a form of a 1D vector.
def array(k, norm = True):
# If norm = True, return array of autocorrelation coefficients.
# If norm = False, return array of autocovariance coefficients.
vector = np.array([])
shifts = np.abs(np.arange(-k, k+1, 1))
for i in shifts:
if norm == True:
vector = np.append(crossCorrelation(Xi, Yi, i), vector)
else:
vector = np.append(crossCovariance(Xi, Yi, N, i, Xs, Ys), vector)
return vector
In my example, calling the method array(k, norm = True) for different values of k will give resuslt as I shown below:
k = 3, [ 0. -0.5 0. 1. 0. -0.5 0. ]
k = 2, [-0.5 0. 1. 0. -0.5]
k = 1, [ 0. 1. 0.]
k = 0, [ 1.]
My approach is good for the learning purposes but I need to move to the native numpy functions in order to speed up my analysis. How one could specify the k shift value while using the native numpy.correlate function? PS k parameter specify the "time" shift between two arrays. Thank you in advance.

Whilst I'm not aware of any built-in function for computing the cross-correlation for a particular range of signal lags, you can speed your version up a lot by vectorization, i.e. performing operations on arrays rather than single elements in an array.
This version uses only a single Python loop over the lags:
import numpy as np
def xcorr(x, y, k, normalize=True):
n = x.shape[0]
# initialize the output array
out = np.empty((2 * k) + 1, dtype=np.double)
lags = np.arange(-k, k + 1)
# pre-compute E(x), E(y)
mu_x = x.mean()
mu_y = y.mean()
# loop over lags
for ii, lag in enumerate(lags):
# use slice indexing to get 'shifted' views of the two input signals
if lag < 0:
xi = x[:lag]
yi = y[-lag:]
elif lag > 0:
xi = x[:-lag]
yi = y[lag:]
else:
xi = x
yi = y
# x - mu_x; y - mu_y
xdiff = xi - mu_x
ydiff = yi - mu_y
# E[(x - mu_x) * (y - mu_y)]
out[ii] = xdiff.dot(ydiff) / n
# NB: xdiff.dot(ydiff) == (xdiff * ydiff).sum()
if normalize:
# E[(x - mu_x) * (y - mu_y)] / (sigma_x * sigma_y)
out /= np.std(x) * np.std(y)
return lags, out
Some more general points of advice:
As I mentioned in the comments, you should try to give your functions names that are informative, and that aren't likely to conflict with other things in your namespace (e.g. array vs np.array).
It's much better to make your functions self-contained. In your version, N, k, Xs and Ys are defined outside the main function. In this situation you might accidentally modify or overwrite one of these variables, and it can get tricky to debug errors caused by this sort of thing.
Appending to numpy arrays (e.g. using np.append or np.concatenate) is slow, so avoid it whenever you can. If, as in this case, you know the size of the output ahead of time, it's much faster to pre-allocate the output array (e.g. using np.empty or np.zeros), then fill in the elements. If you absolutely have to do concatenation, it's often faster to append to a normal Python list, then convert it to a numpy array at the end.

It's available by specifying maxlags:
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
xcorr = plt.xcorr(signal_1, signal_2, maxlags=1)
Documentation can be found here. This implementation is based on np.correlate.

Error in solving a nonlinear optimization system with dynamic constraint using openopt and scipy

I'm trying to solve an nonlinear optimal control problem subject to dynamic ( h(x, x', u) = 0 ) constraint.
given:
f(x) = (u(t) - u(0)(t))^2 # u0(t) is the initial input provided to the system
h(x) = y'(t) - integral(sqrt(u(t))*y(t) + y(t)) = 0 # a nonlinear differential equation
-2 < y(t) < 10 # system state is bounded to this range
-2 < u(t) < 10 # system state is bounded to this range
u0(t) # will be defined as an arbitrary piecewise-linear function
I've tried to translate the problem into python code using openopt and scipy:
import numpy as np
from scipy.integrate import *
from openopt import NLP
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from operator import and_
N = 15*4
y0 = 10
t0 = 0
tf = 10
lb, ub = np.ones(2)*-2, np.ones(2)*10
t = np.linspace(t0, tf, N)
u0 = np.piecewise(t, [t < 3, and_(3 <= t, t < 6), 6 <= t], [2, lambda t: t - 3, lambda t: -t + 9])
p = np.empty(N, dtype=np.object)
r = np.empty(N, dtype=np.object)
y = np.empty(N, dtype=np.object)
u = np.empty(N, dtype=np.object)
ff = np.empty(N, dtype=np.object)
for i in range(N):
t = np.linspace(t0, tf, N)
b, a = t[i], t[i - 1]
integrand = lambda t, u1, y1 : np.sqrt(u1)*y1 + y1
integral = lambda u1, y1 : fixed_quad(integrand, a, b, args=(u1, y1))[0]
f = lambda x1: ((x1[1] - u0[i])**2).sum()
h = lambda x1: x1[0] - y0 - integral(x1[0], x1[1])
p[i] = NLP(f, (y0, u0[i]), h=h, lb=lb, ub=ub)
r[i] = p[i].solve('scipy_slsqp')
y0 = r[i].xf[0]
y[i] = r[i].xf[0]
u[i] = r[i].xf[1]
ff[i] = r[i].ff
figure1 = plt.figure()
axis1 = figure1.add_subplot(311)
plt.plot(u0)
axis2 = figure1.add_subplot(312)
plt.plot(u)
axis2 = figure1.add_subplot(313)
plt.plot(y)
plt.show()
Now the problem is, running the code with a positive initial y0 like y0 = 10 , the code will result satisfying results.
But giving y0 = 0 or a negative one y0 = -1, nlp problem will be deficient, saying:
"NO FEASIBLE SOLUTION has been obtained (1 constraint is equal to NaN, MaxResidual = 0, objFunc = nan)"
Also, considering the piecewise-linear initial u0, if you put any number other than 0 at the first range of the function at t < 3, meaning:
u0 = np.piecewise(t, [t < 3, and_(3 <= t, t < 6), 6 <= t], [2, lambda t: t - 3, lambda t: -t + 9])
instead of:
u0 = np.piecewise(t, [t < 3, and_(3 <= t, t < 6), 6 <= t], [0, lambda t: t - 3, lambda t: -t + 9])
This will result in the same error again.
Any ideas ?
Thanks in advance.

My first thought is that you seem to be solving a 2-dimensional Optimal Control problem as if it were a 1-Dimensional problem.
The constraint dynamics $h(x, x', t)$ are really a second order ODE.
y''(t) - sqrt(u(t))*y(t) + y(t)) = 0
Starting from this I would reword my system as a 2-dimensional, 1st order system in the standard way.
My second thought is that you seem to be optimizing independently, for $u(t)$, at each time step, whereas the problem is to optimize globally for $u(.)$, the entire function. So if anything, the call to NLP should be outside the for loop...
There are dedicated Optimal Control Open Source toolboxes:
Pythonically, there is JModellica: http://www.jmodelica.org/.
Alternatively, I have also successfully used: ACADO, http://sourceforge.net/p/acado/wiki/Home/ (in C++)

There are some very capable modeling tools now such as CasADi, Pyomo, and Gekko that didn't exist when the question was asked. Here is a solution with Gekko. One issue is that sqrt(u) needs to have a positive u value to avoid imaginary numbers.
from gekko import GEKKO
import numpy as np
m = GEKKO(remote=False)
u0=1; N=61
m.time = np.linspace(0,10,N)
# lb of -2 leads to imaginary number with sqrt(-)
u = m.MV(u0,lb=1e-2,ub=10); u.STATUS=1
m.options.MV_STEP_HOR = 18 # allow move at 3, 6 time units
m.options.MV_TYPE = 1 # piecewise linear
y = m.Var(10,lb=-2,ub=10)
m.Minimize((u-u0)**2)
m.Minimize(y**2) # otherwise solution is u=u0
m.Equation(y.dt()==m.integral(m.sqrt(u)*y-y))
m.options.IMODE=6
m.options.SOLVER=1
m.solve()
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
plt.figure(figsize=(7,4))
plt.plot(m.time,u,label='u')
plt.plot(m.time,y,label='y')
plt.legend(); plt.grid()
plt.savefig('solution.png',dpi=300)
plt.show()