CVE 154 – Statics of Rigid Bodies

LESSON 4:
ROOTS OF EQUATIONS -
BRACKETING METHODS
 ROOTS OF EQUATIONS
 The roots of an equation, also called the zeros of an equation, are the values of
𝑥 that makes
𝑓(𝑥) = 0
 Graphically, the roots of a function are the values where the curve that
represents the function crosses the x-axis as shown below.

f 𝑥 The roots of the function

are 𝑥1 , 𝑥2 , 𝑥3 and 𝑥4 .

𝑥1 𝑥2 𝑥3 𝑥4
 ROOTS OF EQUATIONS
 Roots of equations may be either real 𝑥 = 𝑎 or complex 𝑥 = 𝑎 + 𝑖𝑏 where
𝑖 = −1.

The standard numerical methods for locating roots typically fall into these two
categories:
1. The determination of the real roots of algebraic and transcendental equations.
These techniques are usually designed to determine the value of a single real
root on the basis of foreknowledge of its approximate location.
2. The determination of all real and complex roots of polynomials. These
methods are specifically designed for polynomials. They systematically
determine all the roots of the polynomial rather than determining a single real
root given an approximate location.
 GRAPHICAL METHOD
 In this method, an estimate of the root of the equation 𝑓(𝑥) = 0 can be made
by plotting the function and observing where it crosses the x-axis. This point,
which represents the 𝑥 value for which 𝑓(𝑥) = 0 , provides a rough
approximation of the root.
 Useful tool to identify an ideal initial guess (or an interval) that is essential for
numerical solutions.
 It can also be used to gain insight on the behavior of the function in terms of
the number of roots that are located at a given interval prescribed by a lower
bound 𝑥𝑙 and an upper bound 𝑥𝑢 .
 GRAPHICAL METHOD
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS OF THE BEHAVIOR OF FUNCTIONS:
 When 𝑓 𝑥𝑙 and 𝑓 𝑥𝑢 have the same sign:

No roots Even number of roots (2)

 When 𝑓 𝑥𝑙 and 𝑓 𝑥𝑢 have different signs:

Single root Odd number of roots (3)

 GRAPHICAL METHOD
EXEMPTIONS TO THE GENERALIZATIONS:
 Functions that are tangential to  Functions that are discontinuous
the x-axis at certain locations at an interval:
have multiple roots:

Multiple
root
The rule says this should have an odd
The rule says this should have an odd
number of roots because of different
number of roots because of different
signs of 𝑓 𝑥𝑙 and 𝑓 𝑥𝑢 . However,
signs of 𝑓 𝑥𝑙 and 𝑓 𝑥𝑢 . However,
you only see 2 points where the
you only see 2 points where the
function intersects the x-axis.
function intersects the x-axis.
 SAMPLE PROBLEM
EXAMPLE 1: SOLUTION:
Use the graphical approach to This problem can be solved by determining
determine the drag coefficient c needed for the root of the equation and using the
a parachutist of mass m = 68.1 kg to have a parameters 𝑡 = 10, 𝑔 = 9.8, 𝑣 = 40, and
velocity of 40 m/s after free-falling for time 𝑚 = 68.1:
t = 10s. Note: The acceleration due to 𝑔𝑚
gravity is 9.8 m/s2. Use the formula we 𝑣 𝑡 = 1 − 𝑒 − 𝑐/𝑚 𝑡
𝑐
have derived in Lesson 1: 9.8 68.1
40 = 1 − 𝑒 − 𝑐/68.1 10
𝑔𝑚 𝑐
𝑣 𝑡 = 1 − 𝑒− 𝑐/𝑚 𝑡
𝑐 9.8 68.1
0= 1 − 𝑒 − 𝑐/68.1 10 − 40
𝑐
9.8 68.1
𝑓 𝑐 = 1 − 𝑒 − 𝑐/68.1 10 − 40
𝑐
Various values of 𝑐 can be substituted into
the right-hand side of this equation to
compute 𝑓 𝑐 . We will use MS Excel to
speed up calculations and plot the function.
 SAMPLE PROBLEM
GRAPHICAL METHOD OF ROOTS OF EQUATIONS
𝑔𝑚
𝑓 𝑐 = 1 − 𝑒− 𝑐/𝑚 𝑡
−𝑣
𝑐

𝑣= 40m/s
g= 9.8m/s2 𝑓(𝑐) up to c = 20 kg/s
m= 68.1kg 40.000
t= 10s 35.000
30.000
drag 25.000
f(c)
coefficient
(m/s) 20.000
c (kg/s)
15.000 f(c)
2 44.921
10.000
4 34.115
5.000
6 25.142
8 17.653 0.000

10 11.369 -5.000 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

12 6.067 -10.000
14 1.569
16 -2.269
18 -5.561
20 -8.401
 SAMPLE PROBLEM
 The graph below shows a close-up of the interval from 𝑐 = 14 to 𝑐 = 16. This is
done by adjusting the x and y axis values so you can get a rough estimate of the answer
of at least 𝑐 = 14.75 kg/s.

𝑓(𝑐) up to c = 20 kg/s
2.000

1.000

0.000
14 14.25 14.5 14.75 15 15.25 15.5 15.75 16
-1.000 f(c)

-2.000

-3.000

-4.000
 BISECTION METHOD
 The bisection method is alternatively called binary chopping, interval halving,
or Bolzano’s method.
 It follows the general principle, if 𝑓 𝑥 is real and continuous in the interval
from 𝑥𝑙 to 𝑥𝑢 and 𝑓 𝑥𝑙 and 𝑓 𝑥𝑢 have opposite signs
𝑓 𝑥𝑙 𝑓 𝑥𝑢 < 0
then there is at least one real root between 𝑥𝑙 and 𝑥𝑢 .
 BISECTION METHOD
GENERAL PROCEDURE:
Step 1: Choose an interval with lower 𝑥𝑙 and upper 𝑥𝑢 guesses for the root such
that the function changes sign over the interval. Check that
𝑓 𝑥𝑙 𝑓 𝑥𝑢 < 0
Step 2: An estimate of the root 𝑥𝑟 is determined to be at the midpoint :
𝑥𝑙 + 𝑥𝑢
𝑥𝑟 =
2
Step 3: Determine which subinterval, upper or lower, the root lies:
a) If 𝑓 𝑥𝑙 𝑓 𝑥𝑟 < 0 , the root lies in the lower subinterval.
Therefore, set 𝑥𝑢 = 𝑥𝑟 and return to step 2.
b) If 𝑓 𝑥𝑙 𝑓 𝑥𝑟 > 0 , the root lies in the upper subinterval.
Therefore, set 𝑥𝑙 = 𝑥𝑟 and return to step 2.
c) If 𝑓 𝑥𝑙 𝑓 𝑥𝑟 = 0, the root equals 𝑥𝑟 ; Then, terminate the
computation.
 BISECTION METHOD
f 𝑥
f 𝑥

1st Interval
2nd Interval
3rd Interval
4th

𝑥𝑙 𝑥𝑟 𝑥𝑢
1st Iteration: x
2nd Iteration: 𝑥𝑙 𝑥𝑟 𝑥𝑢
3nd Iteration: 𝑥𝑙 𝑥𝑟 𝑥𝑢
 BISECTION METHOD
TERMINATION CRITERIA AND ERROR ESTIMATES:
 We use an error estimate that is not contingent on us knowing the true value of
the root. The approximate percent relative error is calculated as.
𝑛𝑒𝑤 𝑥𝑟 − 𝑜𝑙𝑑 𝑥𝑟
𝜀𝑎 = 100%
𝑛𝑒𝑤 𝑥𝑟
or
𝑥𝑢 − 𝑥𝑙
𝜀𝑎 = 100%
𝑥𝑢 + 𝑥𝑙
where
𝑛𝑒𝑤 𝑥𝑟 = the root of the present iteration
𝑜𝑙𝑑 𝑥𝑟 = the root of the previous iteration
𝑥𝑢 = the upper boundary of the interval of the present iteration
𝑥𝑙 = the lower boundary of the interval of the present iteration
 We will stop our iterations we have attained an absolute percent relative error
that is less than a pre-specified stopping criterion 𝜀𝑠 .
 BISECTION METHOD
 Note that 𝜀𝑎 > 𝜀𝑡 . This is always true for the bisection method because each
𝑥 +𝑥
time an approximate root is located using bisection as 𝑥𝑟 = 𝑢 𝑙, we know
2
𝑥𝑢 −𝑥𝑙 ∆𝑥
that the true root lies somewhere within an interval of = . Therefore,
2 2
∆𝑥
the true root must lie within ± of our estimate.
2

𝑛𝑒𝑤 𝑥𝑟 − 𝑜𝑙𝑑 𝑥𝑟 > 𝑥𝑡 − 𝑛𝑒𝑤 𝑥𝑟

 BISECTION METHOD
ABSOLUTE APPROXIMATE ERROR = INTERVAL SIZE:
 Before starting the technique, the absolute approximate error is:
𝐸𝑎 0 = 𝑥𝑢 0 − 𝑥𝑙 0 = ∆𝑥 0
where the superscript designates the iteration. Hence, before starting the
method, we are at the “zero iteration.” After the first iteration, the error
becomes
1 ∆𝑥 0
𝐸𝑎 =
2
 Because each succeeding iteration halves the error, a general formula relating
the error and the number of iterations, 𝑛, is

𝑛 ∆𝑥 0
𝐸𝑎 = 𝑛
2
 BISECTION METHOD
NUMBER OF ITERATIONS BASE ON DESIRED ERROR:
 If 𝐸𝑎,𝑑 is the desired approximate error, we manipulate the previous equation:
∆𝑥 0
𝐸𝑎,𝑑 = 𝑛
2
0
∆𝑥
log 2𝑛 = log
𝐸𝑎,𝑑
∆𝑥 0
𝑛 log 2 = log
𝐸𝑎,𝑑
∆𝑥 0
log
𝐸𝑎,𝑑
𝑛=
log 2
where
𝑛 = the least number of iterations require to obtain an approximate
error less that the desired approximate error
 SAMPLE PROBLEM
EXAMPLE 2: SOLUTION:
Use bisection to determine the drag We will use the function we have derived in
coefficient 𝑐 needed for a parachutist of the previous example.
mass m = 68.1 kg to have a velocity of 40 9.8 68.1
m/s after free-falling for time t = 10s. Note: 𝑓 𝑐 = 1 − 𝑒 − 𝑐/68.1 10 − 40
𝑐
The acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s2.
The first step in bisection is to guess two
𝑔𝑚
𝑣 𝑡 = 1 − 𝑒 − 𝑐/𝑚 𝑡 values of the unknown drag coefficient 𝑐
𝑐 that give values for 𝑓 𝑐 with different signs.
Continue the iteration until the This is where a plot of the function is very
approximate percent relative error falls useful. Lets assume our first interval is
below a stopping criterion of 𝜀𝑠 = 0.5%. between 12 and 16.
Note that the true value is
𝑐 = 14.7802022063584 kg/s. We will us MS Excel to speed up calculations.
 SAMPLE PROBLEM
BISECTION METHOD OF ROOTS OF EQUATIONS:
𝑔𝑚
𝑓 𝑐 = 1 − 𝑒− 𝑐/𝑚 𝑡
−𝑣
𝑐
𝑣= 40m/s
g= 9.8m/s2
m= 68.1kg
t= 10s
c = 14.7802022kg/s (true value)
εs = 0.5%

Number
cl cu cr f(cl) f(cu) f(cr) f(cl) f(cr) |εa| |εt|
of
(kg/s) (kg/s) (kg/s) (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) (%) (%)
Iterations
1 12.0000 16.0000 14.0000 6.0669 -2.2688 1.5687 9.5172 5.2787
2 14.0000 16.0000 15.0000 1.5687 -2.2688 -0.4248 -0.6664 6.6667 1.4871
3 14.0000 15.0000 14.5000 1.5687 -0.4248 0.5523 0.8664 3.4483 1.8958
4 14.5000 15.0000 14.7500 0.5523 -0.4248 0.0590 0.0326 1.6949 0.2043
5 14.7500 15.0000 14.8750 0.0590 -0.4248 -0.1841 -0.0109 0.8403 0.6414
6 14.7500 14.8750 14.8125 0.0590 -0.1841 -0.0629 -0.0037 0.4219 0.2185
 BISECTION METHOD
PROBLEMS WITH BISECTION METHOD:
1. Intervals containing several roots.

 If 𝑓 𝑥𝑙 𝑓 𝑥𝑢 < 0, then the bisection method

will find one of the roots. However it is does
not say if there is only one root within the
interval. You can use graphical methods or
tables to find intervals with only 1 root.

2. Functions that are tangential to the x-axis at certain locations have multiple
roots.

 The bisection method will not work since the

function does not change sign.
Ex. 𝑓 𝑥 = 𝑥−2 2
𝑥𝑙 𝑥𝑢
 BISECTION METHOD
3. Singularities.

 The bisection method will solve for a

singularity as if it were a root. Therefore, we
must check the functional values to ensure
convergence to see if it is indeed a root.

𝑥𝑙 𝑥𝑢
 FALSE POSITION METHOD
 The false position method is alternatively called regula falsi or the linear
interpolation method.

 This method takes into account the

magnitudes of 𝑓 𝑥𝑙 and 𝑓 𝑥𝑢 . For
example, if 𝑓 𝑥𝑙 is much closer to zero
than 𝑓 𝑥𝑢 , it is likely that the root is
closer to 𝑥𝑙 than to 𝑥𝑢 . The method
exploits this graphical insight by using a
straight line to join 𝑓 𝑥𝑙 and 𝑓 𝑥𝑢 .
The intersection of this line with the x
axis represents an improved estimate
of the root.
 Equating similar triangles:
𝑓 𝑥𝑙 𝑓 𝑥𝑢
=
𝑥𝑟 − 𝑥𝑙 𝑥𝑟 − 𝑥𝑢
 FALSE POSITION METHOD
 Manipulating the previous equation to solve for 𝑥𝑟 :

𝑓 𝑥𝑢 𝑥𝑙 − 𝑥𝑢
𝑥𝑟 = 𝑥𝑢 −
𝑓 𝑥𝑙 − 𝑓 𝑥𝑢

 This is the false-position formula. The value of 𝑥𝑟 computed by this formula

then replaces whichever of the two initial guesses, 𝑥𝑙 or 𝑥𝑢 , yields a function
value with the same sign as 𝑓 𝑥𝑟 . In this way, the values of 𝑥𝑙 and 𝑥𝑢 always
bracket the true root.
 The algorithm for false position method is identical to the one for bisection
with the exception that the false-position formula is used for step 2.
 The stopping criterion used to terminate the computation is the same as the
bisection method.
𝑛𝑒𝑤 𝑥𝑟 − 𝑜𝑙𝑑 𝑥𝑟
𝜀𝑎 = 100%
𝑛𝑒𝑤 𝑥𝑟
 FALSE POSITION METHOD
GENERAL PROCEDURE:
Step 1: Choose an interval with lower 𝑥𝑙 and upper 𝑥𝑢 guesses for the root such
that the function changes sign over the interval. Check that
𝑓 𝑥𝑙 𝑓 𝑥𝑢 < 0
Step 2: An estimate of the root 𝑥𝑟 is determined to be at the midpoint :
𝑓 𝑥𝑢 𝑥𝑙 − 𝑥𝑢
𝑥𝑟 = 𝑥𝑢 −
𝑓 𝑥𝑙 − 𝑓 𝑥𝑢
Step 3: Determine which subinterval, upper or lower, the root lies:
a) If 𝑓 𝑥𝑙 𝑓 𝑥𝑟 < 0 , the root lies in the lower subinterval.
Therefore, set 𝑥𝑢 = 𝑥𝑟 and return to step 2.
b) If 𝑓 𝑥𝑙 𝑓 𝑥𝑟 > 0 , the root lies in the upper subinterval.
Therefore, set 𝑥𝑙 = 𝑥𝑟 and return to step 2.
c) If 𝑓 𝑥𝑙 𝑓 𝑥𝑟 = 0, the root equals 𝑥𝑟 ; Then, terminate the
computation.
 SAMPLE PROBLEM
EXAMPLE 3: SOLUTION:
Use the false position method to determine We will use the function we have derived in
the drag coefficient 𝑐 needed for a the previous example.
parachutist of mass m = 68.1 kg to have a 9.8 68.1
velocity of 40 m/s after free-falling for time 𝑓 𝑐 = 1 − 𝑒 − 𝑐/68.1 10 − 40
𝑐
t = 10s. Note: The acceleration due to
The first step in the false position method is
gravity is 9.8 m/s2.
to guess two values of the unknown drag
𝑔𝑚
𝑣 𝑡 = 1 − 𝑒 − 𝑐/𝑚 𝑡 coefficient 𝑐 that give values for 𝑓 𝑐 with
𝑐 different signs. This is where a plot of the
Continue the iteration until the function is very useful. Lets assume our first
approximate percent relative error falls interval is between 12 and 16.
below a stopping criterion of 𝜀𝑠 = 0.5%.
We will use MS Excel to speed up
calculations.
 SAMPLE PROBLEM
FALSE POSTION METHOD OF ROOTS OF EQUATIONS:
𝑔𝑚
𝑓 𝑐 = 1 − 𝑒 − 𝑐/𝑚 𝑡
−𝑣
𝑐

𝑣= 40m/s
g= 9.8m/s2
m= 68.1kg
t= 10s
c = 14.7802022kg/s (true value)
𝑓 𝑐𝑢 𝑐𝑙 − 𝑐𝑢
εs = 0.5% 𝑐𝑟 = 𝑐𝑢 −
𝑓 𝑐𝑙 − 𝑓 𝑐𝑢

Number
cl cu f(cl) f(cu) cr f(cr) f(cl) f(cr) |εa| |εt|
of
(kg/s) (kg/s) (m/s) (m/s) (kg/s) (m/s) (%) (%)
Iterations
1 12.0000 16.0000 6.0669 -2.2688 14.9113 -0.2543 -1.5427 0.8870
2 12.0000 14.9113 6.0669 -0.2543 14.7942 -0.0273 -0.1654 0.7916 0.0947
3 12.0000 14.7942 6.0669 -0.0273 14.7817 -0.0029 -0.0176 0.0845 0.0101
4 12.0000 14.7817 6.0669 -0.0029 14.7804 -0.0003 -0.0019 0.0090 0.0011
5 12.0000 14.7804 6.0669 -0.0003 14.7802 0.0000 -0.0002 0.0010 0.0001
6 12.0000 14.7802 6.0669 0.0000 14.7802 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000
 FALSE POSITION METHOD
PITFALLS OF THE FALSE POSITION METHOD:
 Although false position is often superior to bisection, there are invariably cases
that violate this general conclusion.
 The major weakness of the false-position method is its one-sidedness. That is,
as iterations are proceeding, one of the bracketing points will tend to stay
fixed. This can lead to poor convergence, particularly for functions with
significant curvature as will be shown in our next example.
 SAMPLE PROBLEM
EXAMPLE 4:
Use bisection and false position method to locate the root of the function
𝑓 𝑥 = 𝑥 10 − 1
between 𝑥 = 0 and 1.3.

SOLUTION:
We use MS Excel to speed up the calculations for the first five iterations of each method.
The tables of the calculations are shown in the next slide.
 SAMPLE PROBLEM
BISECTION METHOD
Number
|εa| |εt|
of xl xu xr f(xl) f(xu) f(xr) f(xl) f(xr)
(%) (%)
Iterations
1 0.0000 1.3000 0.6500 -1.0000 12.7858 -0.9865 0.9865 35.0000
2 0.6500 1.3000 0.9750 -0.9865 12.7858 -0.2237 0.2207 33.3333 2.5000
3 0.9750 1.3000 1.1375 -0.2237 12.7858 2.6267 -0.5875 14.2857 13.7500
4 0.9750 1.1375 1.0563 -0.2237 2.6267 0.7285 -0.1629 7.6923 5.6250
5 0.9750 1.0563 1.0156 -0.2237 0.7285 0.1677 -0.0375 4.0000 1.5625
FALSE POSITION METHOD
Number
|εa| |εt|
of xl xu f(xl) f(xu) xr f(xr) f(xl) f(xr)
(%) (%)
Iterations
1 0.0000 1.3000 -1.0000 12.7858 0.0943 -1.0000 1.0000 90.5700
2 0.0943 1.3000 -1.0000 12.7858 0.1818 -1.0000 1.0000 48.1183 81.8241
3 0.1818 1.3000 -1.0000 12.7858 0.2629 -1.0000 1.0000 30.8570 73.7126
4 0.2629 1.3000 -1.0000 12.7858 0.3381 -1.0000 1.0000 22.2508 66.1895
5 0.3381 1.3000 -1.0000 12.7858 0.4079 -0.9999 0.9999 17.1063 59.2122
 SAMPLE PROBLEM
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
 For bisection method, the true error is reduced to less
than 2 percent after five iterations. For false position,
the true error has only been reduced to about 59
percent after five iterations.
 In addition, note that using false position method for
this function leads to 𝜀𝑎 < 𝜀𝑡 . Thus, the approximate
error is misleading.
 We examine the plot of the function and see that the
curve violates the premise upon which the false position
method was based — that is, if 𝑓 𝑥𝑙 is much closer to
zero than 𝑓 𝑥𝑢 , then the root is closer to 𝑥𝑙 than to 𝑥𝑢 .
Because of the shape of the present function, the
opposite is true.
Plot of 𝑓 𝑥 = 𝑥 10 − 1,
illustrating slow convergence
of the false-position method.
MODIFIED FALSE POSITION METHOD
 One way to mitigate the “one-sided” nature of false position is to have the
algorithm detect when one of the bounds is stuck. If this occurs, the function
value at the stagnant bound can be divided in half. This is called the modified
false-position method specifically the Illinois algorithm.
 The effectiveness of this method can be demonstrated by applying it to
previous example of the function 𝑓 𝑥 = 𝑥 10 − 1. If a stopping criterion of
0.01% is used, the bisection and standard false-position methods would
converge in 14 and 39 iterations, respectively. In contrast, the modified false
position method would converge in 15 iterations. Thus, for this example, it is as
efficient to bisection and is vastly superior to the unmodified false-position
method.
 SAMPLE PROBLEM
EXAMPLE 5:
Use bisection, false position method, and modified false-position to locate the root of the
function
𝑓 𝑥 = 𝑥 10 − 1
between 𝑥 = 0 and 1.3. Use a stopping criterion of 𝜀𝑠 = 0.01%.

SOLUTION:
We use MS Excel to speed up the calculations of each method. The tables of the
calculations are shown in the next slides.
 SAMPLE PROBLEM
BISECTION METHOD
Number
|εa| |εt|
of xl xu xr f(xl) f(xu) f(xr) f(xl) f(xr)
(%) (%)
Iterations
1 0.0000 1.3000 0.6500 -1.0000 12.7858 -0.9865 0.9865 35.0000
2 0.6500 1.3000 0.9750 -0.9865 12.7858 -0.2237 0.2207 33.3333 2.5000
3 0.9750 1.3000 1.1375 -0.2237 12.7858 2.6267 -0.5875 14.2857 13.7500
4 0.9750 1.1375 1.0563 -0.2237 2.6267 0.7285 -0.1629 7.6923 5.6250
5 0.9750 1.0563 1.0156 -0.2237 0.7285 0.1677 -0.0375 4.0000 1.5625
6 0.9750 1.0156 0.9953 -0.2237 0.1677 -0.0459 0.0103 2.0408 0.4687
7 0.9953 1.0156 1.0055 -0.0459 0.1677 0.0561 -0.0026 1.0101 0.5469
8 0.9953 1.0055 1.0004 -0.0459 0.0561 0.0039 -0.0002 0.5076 0.0391
9 0.9953 1.0004 0.9979 -0.0459 0.0039 -0.0213 0.0010 0.2545 0.2148
10 0.9979 1.0004 0.9991 -0.0213 0.0039 -0.0088 0.0002 0.1271 0.0879
11 0.9991 1.0004 0.9998 -0.0088 0.0039 -0.0024 0.0000 0.0635 0.0244
12 0.9998 1.0004 1.0001 -0.0024 0.0039 0.0007 0.0000 0.0317 0.0073
13 0.9998 1.0001 0.9999 -0.0024 0.0007 -0.0009 0.0000 0.0159 0.0085
14 0.9999 1.0001 1.0000 -0.0009 0.0007 -0.0001 0.0000 0.0079 0.0006
FALSE POSITION METHOD
Number of |εa| |εt|
xl xu f(xl) f(xu) xr f(xr) f(xl) f(xr)
Iterations (%) (%)
1 0.0000 1.3000 -1.0000 12.7858 0.0943 -1.0000 1.0000 90.5700
2 0.0943 1.3000 -1.0000 12.7858 0.1818 -1.0000 1.0000 48.1183 81.8241
3 0.1818 1.3000 -1.0000 12.7858 0.2629 -1.0000 1.0000 30.8570 73.7126
4 0.2629 1.3000 -1.0000 12.7858 0.3381 -1.0000 1.0000 22.2508 66.1895
5 0.3381 1.3000 -1.0000 12.7858 0.4079 -0.9999 0.9999 17.1063 59.2122
6 0.4079 1.3000 -0.9999 12.7858 0.4726 -0.9994 0.9993 13.6918 52.7417
7 0.4726 1.3000 -0.9994 12.7858 0.5326 -0.9982 0.9976 11.2639 46.7428
8 0.5326 1.3000 -0.9982 12.7858 0.5881 -0.9950 0.9932 9.4489 41.1855
9 0.5881 1.3000 -0.9950 12.7858 0.6395 -0.9886 0.9837 8.0369 36.0456
10 0.6395 1.3000 -0.9886 12.7858 0.6869 -0.9766 0.9654 6.9000 31.3057
11 0.6869 1.3000 -0.9766 12.7858 0.7304 -0.9568 0.9344 5.9557 26.9554
12 0.7304 1.3000 -0.9568 12.7858 0.7701 -0.9266 0.8866 5.1490 22.9901
13 0.7701 1.3000 -0.9266 12.7858 0.8059 -0.8844 0.8195 4.4433 19.4092
14 0.8059 1.3000 -0.8844 12.7858 0.8379 -0.8295 0.7336 3.8152 16.2126
15 0.8379 1.3000 -0.8295 12.7858 0.8660 -0.7627 0.6326 3.2509 13.3972
16 0.8660 1.3000 -0.7627 12.7858 0.8905 -0.6866 0.5236 2.7435 10.9543
17 0.8905 1.3000 -0.6866 12.7858 0.9113 -0.6049 0.4153 2.2902 8.8672
18 0.9113 1.3000 -0.6049 12.7858 0.9289 -0.5218 0.3156 1.8901 7.1115
19 0.9289 1.3000 -0.5218 12.7858 0.9434 -0.4414 0.2303 1.5424 5.6564
20 0.9434 1.3000 -0.4414 12.7858 0.9553 -0.3668 0.1619 1.2454 4.4666
21 0.9553 1.3000 -0.3668 12.7858 0.9649 -0.3001 0.1101 0.9961 3.5054
22 0.9649 1.3000 -0.3001 12.7858 0.9726 -0.2423 0.0727 0.7900 2.7370
23 0.9726 1.3000 -0.2423 12.7858 0.9787 -0.1935 0.0469 0.6222 2.1281
24 0.9787 1.3000 -0.1935 12.7858 0.9835 -0.1532 0.0296 0.4871 1.6490
25 0.9835 1.3000 -0.1532 12.7858 0.9873 -0.1204 0.0184 0.3795 1.2743
26 0.9873 1.3000 -0.1204 12.7858 0.9902 -0.0940 0.0113 0.2946 0.9826
27 0.9902 1.3000 -0.0940 12.7858 0.9924 -0.0731 0.0069 0.2279 0.7564
28 0.9924 1.3000 -0.0731 12.7858 0.9942 -0.0567 0.0041 0.1759 0.5816
29 0.9942 1.3000 -0.0567 12.7858 0.9955 -0.0438 0.0025 0.1355 0.4466
30 0.9955 1.3000 -0.0438 12.7858 0.9966 -0.0338 0.0015 0.1042 0.3427
31 0.9966 1.3000 -0.0338 12.7858 0.9974 -0.0260 0.0009 0.0801 0.2629
32 0.9974 1.3000 -0.0260 12.7858 0.9980 -0.0200 0.0005 0.0615 0.2015
33 0.9980 1.3000 -0.0200 12.7858 0.9985 -0.0153 0.0003 0.0472 0.1544
34 0.9985 1.3000 -0.0153 12.7858 0.9988 -0.0118 0.0002 0.0362 0.1183
35 0.9988 1.3000 -0.0118 12.7858 0.9991 -0.0090 0.0001 0.0277 0.0906
36 0.9991 1.3000 -0.0090 12.7858 0.9993 -0.0069 0.0001 0.0212 0.0694
37 0.9993 1.3000 -0.0069 12.7858 0.9995 -0.0053 0.0000 0.0163 0.0531
38 0.9995 1.3000 -0.0053 12.7858 0.9996 -0.0041 0.0000 0.0125 0.0407
39 0.9996 1.3000 -0.0041 12.7858 0.9997 -0.0031 0.0000 0.0095 0.0311
 SAMPLE PROBLEM
MODIFIED FALSE POSTION METHOD (ILLINOIS ALGORITHM)

Number
|εa| |εt|
of xl xu f(xl) f(xu) xr f(xr) f(xl) f(xr)
(%) (%)
Iterations
1 0.0000 1.3000 -1.0000 12.7858 0.0943 -1.0000 1.0000 90.5700
2 0.0943 1.3000 -1.0000 6.3929 0.2574 -1.0000 1.0000 63.3629 74.2612
3 0.2574 1.3000 -1.0000 3.1965 0.5058 -0.9989 0.9989 49.1165 49.4162
4 0.5058 1.3000 -0.9989 1.5982 0.8113 -0.8765 0.8755 37.6499 18.8713
5 0.8113 1.3000 -0.8765 0.7991 1.0669 0.9114 -0.7988 23.9603 6.6925
6 0.8113 1.0669 -0.4382 0.9114 0.8943 -0.6728 0.2948 19.3032 10.5702
7 0.8943 1.0669 -0.6728 0.4557 0.9972 -0.0275 0.0185 10.3208 0.2782
8 0.9972 1.0669 -0.0275 0.2278 1.0047 0.0482 -0.0013 0.7465 0.4719
9 0.9972 1.0047 -0.0137 0.0482 0.9989 -0.0111 0.0002 0.5844 0.1118
10 0.9989 1.0047 -0.0111 0.0241 1.0007 0.0073 -0.0001 0.1842 0.0725
11 0.9989 1.0007 -0.0056 0.0073 0.9997 -0.0032 0.0000 0.1045 0.0320
12 0.9997 1.0007 -0.0032 0.0036 1.0002 0.0017 0.0000 0.0488 0.0169
13 0.9997 1.0002 -0.0016 0.0017 0.9999 -0.0008 0.0000 0.0251 0.0082
14 0.9999 1.0002 -0.0008 0.0008 1.0000 0.0004 0.0000 0.0124 0.0042
15 0.9999 1.0000 -0.0004 0.0004 1.0000 -0.0002 0.0000 0.0062 0.0021
 REFERENCE
Chapra, S. C., & Canale, R. P. (2010). Numerical Methods for
Engineers (6th Edition). McGraw-Hill.
THE END