UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA

ASSIGNMENT 1

COURSE : NUMERICAL METHODS WITH APPLICATIONS

COURSE CODE : MEC500
DEADLINE : WEEK 9
MODE : INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT

INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT GUIDELINES

1. Answer ALL questions in ENGLISH.

2. Use the provided format for the cover page and answer template.

It is COMPULSORY to use computational tools (MATLAB/OCTAVE) to complete this

3. assignment.

4. Answers WITHOUT computational approach or simulation tool will result in ZERO marks.

Each student needs to send in a softcopy of the assignment through MS TEAMS / GOOGLE
CLASSROOM / UFUTURE at your respective class setting not later than 16 DEC 2022 (11:59
PM) with the file name:
5.
a) NameStudent.pdf (Report)
b) NameStudent.m (m.file)
*only insert the information in blue.

This assignment is designed for Course Outcome 2 (CO2) and 4 (CO4) of the course:
CO2: Apply various numerical techniques in solving engineering problems [PO2] {C3}.
PO2: Able to Identify, formulate, research literature and analyse complex engineering problems
reaching substantiated conclusions using first principles of mathematics, natural sciences and
6. engineering sciences. (WK1-WK4)
CO4: Construct a computational approach to solve mathematical problems [PO5] {P4}.
PO5: Able to Create, select and apply appropriate techniques, resources, and modern engineering
and IT tools, including prediction and modelling, to complex engineering problems, with an
understanding of the limitations. (WK6)
 UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA
ASSIGNMENT 1

COURSE : NUMERICAL METHODS WITH APPLICATIONS

COURSE CODE : MEC500
DEADLINE : WEEK 9
MODE : INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT

GROUP NO DUE DATE SUBMISSION DATE REMARKS

5 16th DEC 2022 16th DEC 2022

LECTURER NAME DR ABDUL MANAF ABDULLAH

No Name Student ID

1 MUHAMMAD FARUQ HAZIQ BIN ADAM 2021505351

Total
ITEM CO / PO Assessment Criteria (Report) Marks
(w * y)

1 CO2/PO1/C3 Defining problems and objectives 2.0

2 CO2/PO1/C3 Defining method and criteria 2.0

3 CO4/PO5/P4 Reporting graphical methods findings 3.0

4 CO4/PO5/P4 Display computational approach 3.0

5 CO4/PO5/P4 Display computational findings 2.0

6 CO4/PO5/P4 Execution of computational approach 2.0

7 CO2/PO1/C3 Summarizing solution 6.0

TOTAL 20%

REMARKS:
1. Choose ONE engineering case study that requires finding the Roots of an Equation in its analysis.
The problem must be a CASE STUDY that you have learned/ experienced/ experimented with
during your study. Include any relevant diagrams or figures to illustrate the problem.

[CO2: 2 MARKS]
States the problems and objectives clearly and
Does not identify the problems and objectives.
identifies underlying issues.
*Please ensure it is defined as a problem statement, not a question.
2. Each member in the group must solve the chosen engineering problem INDIVIDUALLY using
one of the numerical methods from either Bracketing or Open methods. Please state the method
chosen and briefly describe the theory involved in the numerical method. Also, define the
prespecified tolerance, 𝜀𝑠 that will be used as the stopping criterion for the calculation.

Method chosen: False-Position Method

• False-Position Method is another bracketing method and also known as linear interpolation
method.
• It determines the next guess not by splitting the bracket in half but by connecting the endpoints
with a straight line and determining the location of the intercept of the straight line (Xr).
• Xr can be determined by:
𝑓(𝑥𝑙 )(𝑥𝑙 − 𝑥𝑢 )
𝑥𝑟 = 𝑥𝑢 −
𝑓(𝑥𝑙 ) − 𝑓(𝑥𝑢 )

• Prespecified tolerance:
𝜀𝑠 = (0.5 × 102−𝑃 ) × 100%
𝜀𝑠 = 0.005%

[CO2: 2 MARK]
Develops a clear and concise plan to solve the Does not develop a coherent plan to solve the
problem, offers alternative strategies problem
*Each member must use a different method from one another.
*Make sure your solution complies with the prespecified tolerance stated here.
3. Show how would you solve the problem using the GRAPHICAL METHOD. Use Matlab/Octave
to illustrate your findings and conclude your observation from the graph.

[CO4: 3 MARKS]
Report the results clearly and identify
Does not identify the solution to the problem.
underlying issues
*Make sure to make proper labelling for your plot.
4. Show how would you solve the problem using the CHOSEN METHOD in (2). Display a snapshot
of the .m file. Make sure all main steps are well-defined and explained in the coding.

[CO4: 3 MARKS]
Excellent use of white space. Creatively organized
Does not develop a coherent plan to solve the
work. Excellent use of variables and constants. No
problem
magic numbers.
5. Display a snapshot of the STRUCTURED OUTPUT of the results from the command window.

[CO4: 2 MARKS]

Structured output from test cases is included. No output as the program cannot be executed
6. Runtime of .m file (to be assessed by the lecturer)

[CO4: 2 MARKS]
Executes without errors, excellent user prompts, Does not execute due to syntax errors/runtime errors
good use of symbols, and spacing in output. (endless loop, crashes etc.) User prompts are
misleading or non-existent.
7. Summarize the results of your analysis and include your final answer in the proper SI unit. Compare
and discuss the ACCURACY and the RATE OF CONVERGENCE of the results obtained using
your chosen numerical method with the other numerical methods employed by your other group
members. Discuss your findings.

This analysis is done to find the friction factor of the pipes with the given parameters. The true root
of this analysis can be found using graphical method which is 0.02843. Using the False-Position
Method with initial guesses of 𝑥𝑙 = 0.01 and 𝑥𝑢 = 0.03 and applying it to the formula
𝑓(𝑥𝑙 )(𝑥𝑙 −𝑥𝑢 )
𝑥𝑟 = 𝑥𝑢 − 𝑓(𝑥𝑙 )−𝑓(𝑥𝑢 )
, The script that has been run shown the result of the approximate root which

is 0.02843 at the 12 iterations, the analysis sop at the 12 iterations because the ɛa calculated is lower
than ɛs (ɛa< ɛs) where the ɛa value is 0.00335% while ɛs is 0.005%, It can be concluded from the
graph that it intercepts between 0.025 and 0.3 where the approximate root from the result is 0.02843
.
METHOD APPROXIMATE ROOT ITERATIONS

Bisection 0.02843 13

False-Position 0.02843 11

Modified Secant 0.02843 3

Bisection approach took longer to converge than false position method. This is so that it is clear
from the equation's structure that convergence occurs early. The more basic bisector is used in the
bisection method. Due to the bracketing interval, modified secant converges more quickly than
bisection and false position. Although the method is typically slower than the secant method, we
were able to ensure that the range always encompasses the root by using false position. Every two
repetitions, the secant approach more than doubles the precision of the response in terms of digits.
False position converges much more quickly than bisection despite being slower

[CO2: 6 MARKS]
Report the results clearly and identify
Does not identify the solution to the problem.
underlying issues
*Make sure your solution is in line with the initially defined conditions. *Discuss
the pros and cons of each method.