Skip to main content

control systems - Strange output of a simple statespace model



The output of statespace model seems strange.


In the follwing code, the odes are governing equations of a three floors structure, and the output are three accelerations of floors.


If I understand statespace correctly, the output is simply obtained by using C matrix and D matrix as shown in the following code.


However, the result given by statespace model is wrong.


Am I using StateSpaceModel in a wrong way?


I am not sure if I state my problem clearly, sorry for my poor English.


Thanks.


 Remove["Global`*"] // Quiet;
\[DoubleStruckCapitalM] = {{m1, 0, 0}, {0, m2, 0}, {0, 0, m3}};
\[DoubleStruckCapitalK] = {{k11, k12, k13}, {k21, k22, k23}, {k31, k32, k33}};

\[DoubleStruckCapitalC] = {{c11, c12, c13}, {c21, c22, c23}, {c31, c32, c33}};
\[DoubleStruckCapitalB]\[DoubleStruckS] = {{1, -1, 0}, {0, 1, -1}, {0, 0, 1}};
\[DoubleStruckX] = {{x1[t]}, {x2[t]}, {x3[t]}};
uvec = {{u1[t]}, {u2[t]}, {u3[t]}};
\[CapitalLambda] = {{1}, {1}, {1}};
lhs = \[DoubleStruckCapitalM].D[\[DoubleStruckX], {t,2}] + \[DoubleStruckCapitalC].D[\[DoubleStruckX],t] + \[DoubleStruckCapitalK].\[DoubleStruckX] // Flatten;
rhs = \[DoubleStruckCapitalB]\[DoubleStruckS].uvec - \[DoubleStruckCapitalM].\[CapitalLambda] ddxg[t] // Flatten;
eq = lhs == rhs // Thread;

\[DoubleStruckZ] = {x1[t], x2[t], x3[t], x1'[t], x2'[t], x3'[t]};

\[DoubleStruckY] = {x1''[t], x2''[t], x3''[t]};
\[DoubleStruckU] = {u1[t], u2[t], u3[t], ddxg[t]};
ss = StateSpaceModel[eq, \[DoubleStruckZ], \[DoubleStruckU], \[DoubleStruckY], t];
{AA, BB, CC, DD} = Normal[ss];
ddxSS = CC.\[DoubleStruckZ] + DD.\[DoubleStruckU] // Flatten;
ddxEQ = {x1''[t], x2''[t], x3''[t]} /. Solve[eq, {x1''[t], x2''[t], x3''[t]}] // Flatten;
ddxSS - ddxEQ // Simplify(*this should be {0,0,0}*)

code picture



Answer




You can verify that the result from StateSpaceModel is correct by manually computing the transfer function and comparing it to the transfer function of the result.


With[{vars = LaplaceTransform[#[t], t, s] & /@ {x1, x2, x3}},
s^2 D[vars /. Solve[LaplaceTransform[eq, t, s], vars][[1]],
{LaplaceTransform[#[t], t, s] & /@ {u1, u2, u3, ddxg}}]] - TransferFunctionModel[ss][s]//
AllTrue[#, PossibleZeroQ, 2] &


True



The mistake in your verification is that you are assuming that the states of ss are also $\mathbf{z}$. You have a descriptor system that has been converted to a standard state-space form and the original states are lost.



To preserve the original structure set the option DescriptorStateSpace to True. Now you can see that eq appears in the last state equations and the states of the descriptor state-space representation are $\left\{\text{x1}(t),\text{x1}'(t),\text{x1}''(t),\text{x2}(t),\text{x2}'(t),\text{x2}''(t ),\text{x3}(t),\text{x3}'(t),\text{x3}''(t)\right\}$.


StateSpaceModel[eq, \[DoubleStruckZ], \[DoubleStruckU], \[DoubleStruckY], t, DescriptorStateSpace -> True]


>



eq // TableForm


enter image description here




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

plotting - Plot 4D data with color as 4th dimension

I have a list of 4D data (x position, y position, amplitude, wavelength). I want to plot x, y, and amplitude on a 3D plot and have the color of the points correspond to the wavelength. I have seen many examples using functions to define color but my wavelength cannot be expressed by an analytic function. Is there a simple way to do this? Answer Here a another possible way to visualize 4D data: data = Flatten[Table[{x, y, x^2 + y^2, Sin[x - y]}, {x, -Pi, Pi,Pi/10}, {y,-Pi,Pi, Pi/10}], 1]; You can use the function Point along with VertexColors . Now the points are places using the first three elements and the color is determined by the fourth. In this case I used Hue, but you can use whatever you prefer. Graphics3D[ Point[data[[All, 1 ;; 3]], VertexColors -> Hue /@ data[[All, 4]]], Axes -> True, BoxRatios -> {1, 1, 1/GoldenRatio}]

plotting - Filling between two spheres in SphericalPlot3D

Manipulate[ SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, Mesh -> None, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], {n, 0, 1}] I cant' seem to be able to make a filling between two spheres. I've already tried the obvious Filling -> {1 -> {2}} but Mathematica doesn't seem to like that option. Is there any easy way around this or ... Answer There is no built-in filling in SphericalPlot3D . One option is to use ParametricPlot3D to draw the surfaces between the two shells: Manipulate[ Show[SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], ParametricPlot3D[{ r {Sin[t] Cos[1.5 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[1.5 Pi], Cos[t]}, r {Sin[t] Cos[0 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[0 Pi], Cos[t]}}, {r, 1, 2 - n}, {t, 0, Pi}, PlotStyle -> Yellow, Mesh -> {2, 15}]], {n, 0, 1}]

plotting - Mathematica: 3D plot based on combined 2D graphs

I have several sigmoidal fits to 3 different datasets, with mean fit predictions plus the 95% confidence limits (not symmetrical around the mean) and the actual data. I would now like to show these different 2D plots projected in 3D as in but then using proper perspective. In the link here they give some solutions to combine the plots using isometric perspective, but I would like to use proper 3 point perspective. Any thoughts? Also any way to show the mean points per time point for each series plus or minus the standard error on the mean would be cool too, either using points+vertical bars, or using spheres plus tubes. Below are some test data and the fit function I am using. Note that I am working on a logit(proportion) scale and that the final vertical scale is Log10(percentage). (* some test data *) data = Table[Null, {i, 4}]; data[[1]] = {{1, -5.8}, {2, -5.4}, {3, -0.8}, {4, -0.2}, {5, 4.6}, {1, -6.4}, {2, -5.6}, {3, -0.7}, {4, 0.04}, {5, 1.0}, {1, -6.8}, {2, -4.7}, {3, -1....