I Why is my simulation of projectile trajectory with air resistance wrong?

  • Thread starter fisicist
  • Start date
Summary
Simulation of trajectories with friction gives wrong results
Hey!

This started very harmless... A friend and I were throwing stones in a lake. Mine didn't get very far, he was teasing me "What was the ideal angle again?". Of course, I know it should be 45°. I replied in jest: "That's because I'm considering air resistance!" Then we had a discussion what the ideal angle should be with air resistance considered.
So I wrote a simulation in Python. It was just for fun... But I encountered an issue that I don't quite understand: The simulated trajectory is wrong. I hope someone can help me understand where this is coming from, and perhaps give me some hint how to fix it.

My code is:
Python:
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from scipy.integrate import solve_ivp

c = 7
v = 5

# f gives phase space velocity
# z = [x, y, v_x, v_y]
# f(t, z) = [v_x, v_y, a_x, a_y]
def f(t, z):
    global c
    vel = z[2:]
    friction = -c * np.absolute(vel) * vel
    gravity = [0, -0.5]
    accel = friction + gravity
    return np.concatenate((vel, accel))

def hit_ground(t, z): return z[1]
hit_ground.terminal = True
hit_ground.direction = -1

t_eval = np.linspace(0, 100, 10000)

def v_init(theta):
    global v
    return v * np.array([np.cos(theta), np.sin(theta)])

thetas = np.linspace(0.0, np.pi/2, 181)
dists = np.array([])
plt.subplot('211')
for counter,theta in enumerate(thetas):
    init = np.concatenate((np.array([0., 0.]), v_init(theta)))
    sol = solve_ivp(f, [0, 100], init, t_eval = t_eval, events=hit_ground)
    if counter % 40 == 0:
        plt.plot(sol.y[0,:], sol.y[1,:], label='{:4.0f} °'.format(theta*180/np.pi))
        plt.gca().quiver(sol.y[0,::70], sol.y[1,::70], 1000*sol.y[2,::70], 1000*sol.y[3,::70])
    dists = np.append(dists, [sol.y[0,-1]])
#plt.gca().set_aspect('equal', adjustable='box')
plt.legend(loc='upper left')
plt.xlabel('$x$')
plt.ylabel('$y$')

plt.subplot('212')
plt.plot(thetas*180/np.pi, dists, 'r-')
best_angle = thetas[np.argmax(dists)]
plt.gca().axvline(x = best_angle*180/ np.pi)
print('{:3.1f}'.format(best_angle*180/ np.pi))
plt.xlabel('angle [°]')
plt.ylabel('distance')

plt.show()
Result:
angles.png


This shouldn't happen... As you can see, the curves bend upward, i.e. are not concave. Even without knowing the exact solution [itex]y(x)[/itex], it is easy to prove it should be a concave function.
The model is [itex]\ddot{x} = - c \dot{x}\sqrt{\dot{x}^2+\dot{y}^2}, \ddot{y} = - c \dot{y} \sqrt{\dot{x}^2+\dot{y}^2} - \frac 1 2 [/itex]
By the chain rule, [itex]\frac{d^2 y}{d^2 x} (x(t)) = \frac{\ddot{y}}{\dot{x}^2} - \dot{y}\frac{\ddot{x}}{\dot{x}^3} = \frac{1}{\dot{x}^2} \left( -2 c \dot y \sqrt{\dot{x}^2+\dot{y}^2} - \frac 1 2 \right)[/itex]
Therefore, at least as long as [itex]\dot{y} \geq 0[/itex], this should be a concave function. If I through it downwards with high speed, it might get convex there, but not as long as the motion is upward.

CORRECTION: By the chain rule: [itex]\frac{d^2 y}{d^2 x} (x(t)) = -\frac{1}{2 \dot{x}^2} \leq 0[/itex]

So, what is wrong with the simulation? I know the time subdivision is not very high. But that shouldn't matter, because also in the discretized model, the velocity vector should be shortened and then get a downward contribution in every step. That's not what I see in the plot.

Any ideas, anyone?
 
Last edited:
28,027
4,427
Therefore, at least as long as [itex]\dot{y} \geq 0[/itex], this should be a concave function.
Hmm, I am not seeing that, where do you get that condition from?
 
Hmm, I am not seeing that, where do you get that condition from?
[itex]1/\dot{x}^2 \geq 0[/itex] manifestly, so it remains to check that [itex]-2 c \dot{y} \sqrt{\dot{x}^2+\dot{y}^2}-\frac 1 2 \leq 0 [/itex] in order for [itex]d^2 y/ d x^2 \leq 0[/itex] (i.e. concavity). But [itex]-2 c \sqrt{\dot{x}^2 +\dot{y}^2}[/itex] is always negative, so if [itex]\dot{y} \geq 0[/itex], everything is negative.
 
28,027
4,427
What about the 1/2?
 

A.T.

Science Advisor
9,567
1,468
Hmm, I am not seeing that, where do you get that condition from?
An informal argument for concavity: The drag is always tangential so it doesn't change the direction, while gravity is always bending the path down.

Looks like some lift sneaked in somewhere.
 
Last edited:
Hey sorry, I've made a sign error. The two friction terms compensate each other, not add up. Actually not surprising: Without gravity, motion is along a straight line.
I will correct it. Correct is
[itex] d^2 y / dx^2 = - \frac{1}{2 \dot{x}^2} [/itex]
Still, it's concave. In fact, it is *always* concave, even if I throw the stone downwards.
 

A.T.

Science Advisor
9,567
1,468
As you can see, the curves bend upward, i.e. are not concave.
I would call bending upward and then downward "concave". Bending only downward would be "convex", and what you would expect here.

Have you tried coding a simple Euler integration yourself?
 
I would call bending upward and then downward "concave". Bending only downward would be "convex", and what you would expect here.

Have you tried coding a simple Euler integration yourself?
The standard definition used in mathematics (in fields such as calculus of variations, 'convex analysis' or 'convex optimization') is that a function is convex if its epigraph [itex]\operatorname{epi}f := \lbrace (x, y) : y \geq f(x) \rbrace[/itex] is a convex set. For a twice differentiable function, this is equivalent to [itex]f'' \geq 0[/itex]. A function [itex]f[/itex] is concave if [itex]-f[/itex] is convex.
 

A.T.

Science Advisor
9,567
1,468
The standard definition used in mathematics (in fields such as calculus of variations, 'convex analysis' or 'convex optimization') is that a function is convex if its epigraph [itex]\operatorname{epi}f := \lbrace (x, y) : y \geq f(x) \rbrace[/itex] is a convex set. For a twice differentiable function, this is equivalent to [itex]f'' \geq 0[/itex]. A function [itex]f[/itex] is concave if [itex]-f[/itex] is convex.
Ok, thanks. I would suggest coding a simple Euler integration. It should never bend upwards.
 
Thank you to everyone who replied here!
I found the error. It's not a mathematical or numerical curiosity, but a simple coding error. Namely,
Python:
np.absolute(vel)
does not give [itex]\vert \dot{\mathbf x} = \sqrt{\dot{x}^2+\dot{y}^2}[/itex], as I thought it would, but [itex](\vert \dot x \vert, \vert \dot y \vert )^T[/itex], and
Python:
np.absolute(vel) * vel
does not give [itex]\dot{\mathbf{x}} \vert \dot{\mathbf{x}} \vert[/itex], as I thought it would, but [itex](\dot{x} \vert \dot{x} \vert, \dot{y} \vert \dot{y} \vert )^T[/itex].

The correct way to do it is
Python:
np.sqrt(vel.dot(vel)) * vel
 
Thank you to everyone who replied here!
I found the error. It's not a mathematical or numerical curiosity, but a simple coding error. Namely,
Python:
np.absolute(vel)
does not give [itex]\vert \dot{\mathbf x} = \sqrt{\dot{x}^2+\dot{y}^2}[/itex], as I thought it would, but [itex](\vert \dot x \vert, \vert \dot y \vert )^T[/itex], and
Python:
np.absolute(vel) * vel
does not give [itex]\dot{\mathbf{x}} \vert \dot{\mathbf{x}} \vert[/itex], as I thought it would, but [itex](\dot{x} \vert \dot{x} \vert, \dot{y} \vert \dot{y} \vert )^T[/itex].

The correct way to do it is
Python:
np.sqrt(vel.dot(vel)) * vel
Congratulation! So what is the ideal angle when you include air resistance?
 
For anyone interested in the physics: Qualitatively, the result is similar.
angles-corr.png

Qualitatively, the best angle decreases rapidly the higher the friction is:
bestangles.png
 

Mister T

Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,254
636
Run your sim on a baseball and see if 40 deg gives the maximum range.
 

A.T.

Science Advisor
9,567
1,468
The correct way to do it is
Python:
np.sqrt(vel.dot(vel)) * vel
Or:
Python:
np.linalg.norm(vel) * vel


For anyone interested in the physics: Qualitatively, the result is similar.
View attachment 247485
Qualitatively, the best angle decreases rapidly the higher the friction is:
View attachment 247487
Regarding your stone throwing contest:

You could plot the optimal angle as function of the object's density for a given realistic object shape/size and throw speed. It could be that for stones the angle is pretty close to 45° at the speed you can throw, while for light balls (like tennis) it makes sense to aim lower.

Bio-mechanics complicates matters because you won't achieve the same throw speeds for any angle.

Finally, your friend might simply throw much faster, and thus further, even at sub optimal angles.
 
Last edited:

Want to reply to this thread?

"Why is my simulation of projectile trajectory with air resistance wrong?" You must log in or register to reply here.

Related Threads for: Why is my simulation of projectile trajectory with air resistance wrong?

Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Posted
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
45K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top