C/C++ Looking for Runge-Kutta 8th order in C/C++

  • Thread starter Thread starter thor36
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Runge-kutta
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the implementation of the Runge-Kutta 8th order method (RK89) for celestial mechanics applications in C++. Users seek documented and free libraries for this purpose, with one participant mentioning a library that includes the Runge-Kutta-Fehlberg (RKF78) method. Key differences between RKF78 and RK89 are highlighted, with RKF78 being a 7th order method with an 8th order error estimate, while RK89 is an 8th order method with a 9th order error estimate. Precision is emphasized over computation time due to the complexity of planetary motion and satellite dynamics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of numerical methods, specifically Runge-Kutta methods
  • Familiarity with celestial mechanics and astrodynamics
  • Proficiency in C++ programming
  • Knowledge of software licensing and library integration
NEXT STEPS
  • Research available C++ libraries for Runge-Kutta 8th order methods
  • Explore the differences between Runge-Kutta-Fehlberg (RKF78) and Runge-Kutta 8th order (RK89)
  • Investigate high-precision numerical methods for celestial mechanics
  • Learn about extrapolated methods for higher-order numerical integration
USEFUL FOR

Researchers, developers, and engineers working in celestial mechanics, astrodynamics, or anyone seeking to implement high-precision numerical methods in C++ for complex simulations.

thor36
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Greetings all !
This is my first post on the forum, so please kindly let me know if I am not asking a proper question or on a proper board.

I would like to use Runge-Kutta 8th order method (89) in a celestial mechanics / astrodynamics application, written in C++. Therefore I wonder if anyone knows a good library / implementation that is documented and free to use ? It is ok if it is written in C, as long as there aren't any compilation problems to be expected.

So far I have found this library. The code seems ok, but I haven't found any information on licensing.

Can you help me by revealing some of the alternatives you might know and would suit my problem ?
Thank you very much and kind regards,
T
 
Last edited:
Technology news on Phys.org
If you google "eighth order runge kutta method" you'll find plenty of hits to keep you busy.

The list of papers here might be of use, particularly the paper by E. Fehlberg, which discusses
high-order RK methods:
 

Attachments

Thank you for the answer. My question was more application oriented though, trying to find already written software. Nonetheless, I have found a library which includes a Runge-Kutta-Fehlberg(78) method.

Can anyone explain me the main differences if I would be using the "RKF78" instead of RK89 ?

My application would be celestial mechanics - planetary motion as well as artificial satellites. There may be a lot of forces and other varying parameters included, and precision is preferred over computation time. Thank you.
 
If the methods go by the same naming convention, then RFK78 should be 7th order with 8th order error estimate, while RK89 should be 8th order with 9th order error estimate.
 
Rather very slow methods to the n-body Newtonian problem.
Once I used the extrapolated methods... some new version, very fast and practically any order: 2 up to 100, for example, but with higher precision (probably something as 256 bit - quad double; double is enought up to order 20 at most... mayby 16).
 
I tried a web search "the loss of programming ", and found an article saying that all aspects of writing, developing, and testing software programs will one day all be handled through artificial intelligence. One must wonder then, who is responsible. WHO is responsible for any problems, bugs, deficiencies, or whatever malfunctions which the programs make their users endure? Things may work wrong however the "wrong" happens. AI needs to fix the problems for the users. Any way to...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
8K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
13K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
15K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K