cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Community Tip - Visit the PTCooler (the community lounge) to get to know your fellow community members and check out some of Dale's Friday Humor posts! X

Need help to find a symbolic solution

EL_10855394
3-Visitor

Need help to find a symbolic solution

Hi,

 

I'm having trouble finding a symbolic solution I can use in an excel sheet for later use.

I am aware that it's mabye impossible to find a symbolic solution.

EL_10855394_0-1699773925293.png

 

But I was hoping it was, And that you guys could help me?

 

All the values is >0

 

Erik

12 REPLIES 12

I guess you don't really excpect us to retype the forumula and you just forgot to attach your worksheet,

BTW, do you really mean cot(25) and not rather cot(25 deg) ?

And why would you finally use Excel to find the values and not Prime (maybe by using a numerical way like the "root" command?

My guess is that you will have no luck in finding a symbolic solution and if you really must use Excel instead of Prime then you may have to resort to the Excel numeric solver.

I have attached the file now. And I came to think of it, that alle the values er >0.

 

Yeah it's 25deg.

 

I need to put the expression for c.uk into an Excel sheet, because i'm working on an general excel program. The simple program shall be used by my colleagues to determining the soil strength based on a given foundation size, force, depth and some of the other variables in the formula. Which is given based on the foundations size (the s.i factors).

It's looking something like this (in Danish).

 

EL_10855394_0-1699796725906.png

 

So all the variables have a known value depending on the foundations size, depth etc. So manually I could check the result for each 0,1 meters, but that will take for ever.. 

 

I hope that makes sense?

 

First, let's observe that this is an unnecessarily complex equation. 

 

Define a variable 

 X = Fred_Kohlhepp_0-1699793740299.png

 

which can then become

 

s = (A+B+C)*X  or X = s/(A+B+C)

 

So now you have a much simpler equation to solve.  If the RHS is all known quantities this becomes some basic high school algebra!

 

 


@Fred_Kohlhepp wrote:

...

If the RHS is all known quantities this becomes some basic high school algebra!


I guess that you had overlooked that the variable c.ud is also a factor of the last summand. 😞

LucMeekes
23-Emerald III
(To:EL_10855394)

There's no symbolic solution, the order of c.ud in your equation is too high:

LucMeekes_0-1699796021131.png

Try to numerically solve the equation, using the root() function in Prime.

 

Success!
Luc

I haven't tried to use that before.

Is it possible to make that work if:

In a given situation and depth the values are as follows:

sigma is variable depending on the depth

N.i is constant

s.i is constant

gamma is variable

b is constant

q is variable depending on the depth.

H is constant

A is constant

V is constant

fi is constant

 

Not sure if that makes any difference 😉 

 

 

 


@LucMeekes wrote:

There's no symbolic solution, the order of c.ud in your equation is too high:

LucMeekes_0-1699796021131.png

Try to numerically solve the equation, using the root() function in Prime.

 

Success!
Luc


I agree that the final equation cannot be solved symbolically by Prime - looks like we would end up at an equation of order five.

 

Unfortunately using "root" in Prime seems not to be an option as the goal is to provide an Excel sheet for users not using Prime.

The Excel solver sure could do the job but I fear its not an option, too, because its not an automatic one click operation (at least as far as i know) and might be too much for an average Excel user. Not sure if the Excel solver could be made a one-click experience using some scripting.
So one remaining option is to implement/program a numerical solve algorithm in Excel - I guess there might be some ready made toolboxes available, but I can't recommend anything here as I only seldom use Excel and then only the features it provides out of the box.

 

Another option could be to use an approximation (Taylor series, second or third order) and its exact solution.
I have not tried and it may be that the expressions given by the symbolic "solve" are so large that Prime would refuse to display them.

Furthermore you would need to heavily test the results in Prime against the "exact" ones provided by the "root" function using a lot of typical test values to see, if the quality of the approximation is good enough at all.

 

 

So mabye some iteration loop in python?


@EL_10855394 wrote:

So mabye some iteration loop in python?


Could sure be an option - most algorithms like Newton and its derivates are iterations.
The advantage in your situation is that you don't have to create (and test!!)  an algorithm for any function but rather just for one specific one.

Okay, why won't this work?  See the attached Prime 4 sheet.

Thank you Fred.

Did you see that c.ud is also a variable in C?

EL_10855394_0-1699865304343.png

 

AAGGH!

 

Sorry, old eyes missed that!

 

THAT'S why this won't work!!

Top Tags