Está en la página 1de 13

# NATIONAL CHENG KUNG UNIVERSITY

## Instructor: Student: Student ID: Department: Class:

Prof. Szu Chi Tien Nguyen Van Thanh P96007019 Inst. of Manufacturing & Information Systems 1001- N154000 Linear System

November 8, 2011

Contents
Problem 1 ....................................................................................................................... 2 Problem 2 .....................................................................................................................10

## Linear System Theory

Page 1

Problem 1
Given a linear time-invariant system for the three-mass-spring system described in Example 3 of Section 5.5.3,

Note that in this problem we have equal forces u(t) applied simultaneously to masses m1 and m3 but in the opposite directions. The measured output y(t)is the position of mass m2. 1. Is the system controllable? Explain. Consider the controllability matrix = [ CM = 2 3 4 5 ]

## Linear System Theory

Page 2

Rank (CM) = 2 < 6. So the controllability matrix is not full rank, hence the system is not controllable. 2. Identify the modes that are controllable and uncontrollable. Provide a physical meaning to each of the controllable modes (if any). In order to identify which modes are controllable or not. Firstly, we calculate the eigenvalues of matrix A and then use PHB rank Test. Eigenvalues of matrix A,

Called V1, V2, V3, V4, V5, V6 are corresponding to these six eigenvalues. 0.5774 0.2041 0.2041 0.0000 0.3536 0.3536 0.5774 0.4082 0.4082 1 = , 2 = , 3 = 0.0000 0.7071 0.7071 0.2041 0.2041 0.5774 0.3536 0.3536 0.0000 0.5774 0.5000 0.5000 0.0000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5774 0.000 0.000 , 5 = , 6 = 4 = 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5774 0.5000 0.5000 0.0000

PHB Test

Page 3

([5 ([6

## ]) = 5, this mode is uncontrollable.

For V4, the displacement and the velocity of the mass 1 and the mass 3 are symmetric about the mass 2 and the mass 1 and the mass 3 are going to close to the mass 1. For V5, the displacement and the velocity of the mass 1 and the mass 3 are symmetric about the mass 2 and the mass 1 and the mass 3 are going to be far away from the mass 1. For the others, we cannot find any input that brings system to these states. 3. Can you find a control input u(t) that bring the system initial states to the following final states x(tf)?

We pick up two independent column vectors of the controllability matrix, for example, we pick up the first tow column vectors of the controllability matrix

## Linear System Theory

Page 4

12

1 , that means (a) We can easily see that = is in the range space of 12 , (or in the controllable subspace) hence we can find a control input u(t) that bring the system from initial state to this final states. Assume that (0 = 0) = 0. A control input is given below,

1 0 1 0 0 0 = 0 0 0 1 1 0

ut = - ((i/(2*exp(conj(t)*i - (101*i)/10)) - (exp(conj(t)*i (101*i)/10)*i)/2)*(100*sin(101/5) + 2020))/(50*cos(101/5) 25*cos(101/5)^2 - 25*sin(101/5)^2 + 10176) - ((100*cos(101/5) 100)*(((conj(t)*i - (101*i)/10)*i)/(2*exp(conj(t)*i (101*i)/10)*(conj(t) - 101/10)) + (exp(conj(t)*i (101*i)/10)*(conj(t)*i - (101*i)/10)*i)/(2*(conj(t) 101/10))))/(50*cos(101/5) - 25*cos(101/5)^2 - 25*sin(101/5)^2 + 10176);

Page 5

Page 6

## Figure 1.4 Sate of mass 2

Figure 1.5 Sate of mass 3 Through fours figures, Fig.1.2 to Fig.1.5, we can see that, mass2 doesnt move, mass 1 and mass 3 are symmetric about mass 1.

## Linear System Theory

Page 7

(b) Check ([12 ( )]) = 3 > 2, that means is not in the controllable subspace, hence we cannot find a control input u(t) that bring the system from initial state to this final states. (c) Check ([12 ( )]) = 3 > 2, that means is not in the controllable subspace, hence we cannot find a control input u(t) that bring the system from initial state to this final states. 4. Can you find a similarity transformation that places the system into the controllable form? If no, explain why not. No, because the system is not controllable. 5. Can you find a similarity transformation that places the system into the controller form? If no, explain why not. No, because the system is not controllable. 6. Is the system observable? Explain.

Rank (O) = 4 < 6, hence the system is unobservable. 7. Identify the modes that are observable and unobservable. Provide a physical meaning to the unobservable modes (if any).

Page 8

## Use PHB rank test Eigenvalues of matrix A,

PHB Test 1 = 6, this mode is observable. = 6, this mode is observable. 2 3 = 6, this mode is observable. 4 = 5 < 6, this mode is unobservable. 5 = 5 < 6, this mode is unobservable. 6 = 6, this mode is observable. unobservable modes associated with eigenvectors
0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.000 , 5 = 0.000 4 = 0.000 0.000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000

Through the PHB rank test, we find that the modes 4= i and 5= -i are the

In these modes, the masses m1 and m3 oscillate symmetrically about the mass m2 which stays stationary; hence the sensor ysen(t) placed on mass m2 perceives no output, ysen(t)=0.

## Linear System Theory

Page 9

8. Can you find a similarity transformation that places the system into the observable form? If no, explain why not. No, because the system is unobservable. 9. Can you find a similarity transformation that places the system into the observer form? If no, explain why not. No, because the system is unobservable.

Problem 2
Recall that all the units in Problem 1 are respectively m and m/sec for the mass positions and velocities, and the applied force u(t) in N. For some odd reasons, your high-level manager wants you to present the state-space model of the three-mass-spring system given in Problem 1 to the company executives in the following units for the states x(t), input u(t) and output y(t):

## x1(t)in units of inches, x2(t)in units of inch/sec.

x3(t)in units of feet, x4(t)in units of ft/min. x5(t)in units of miles, x6(t)in units of mile/hr.

u(t)in units of lbs, y(t)in units of feet. , , , ? 1. What are your new state model matrices?

## Assume that, = , = , = . The transformation:

= + = 1 + 1 + 1 1 = 1 1 1 1 1 1 = + = + + = Page 10

## Linear System Theory

= + + 1 = 1 1 1 + = = + = 1 1 = 1 = = 1

Unit conversion:

1 m = 1/0.0254 inches; 1 m/s = 1/0.0254 inches/s; 1 m/min = 3.2808 * 60 ft/min; 1 m = 1/1609 miles; 1 N = 0.2248 lbs; Hence, 1 = 1 ; 0.0254 1 1 ; 0.0254 2 1 5 = ; 1609.344 2 2 = 1 m = 3.2808 ft;

## 1 m = 3.2808 ft; 1 m/s = 3600/1609 miles/hr

4 = 3.2808 604 ;

3 = 3.28083 6 =

T is diagonal matrix.

1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0254 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0254 = 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.2808 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.2808 60 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3600 1609.344 0.0000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 1609.344 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.000 0.0000 12.000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0167 0.0000 = 4.9999 0.0000 120.00 0.0000 316800 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000 0.6818 0.00000 3600 = 0.2248; = 3.2808 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0003 0.0000 Page 11

= 0.2248;

= 3.2808

3600 1609.344 6

= 1

## Linear System Theory

= 1 = 1 = [0

2. What are the system eigenvalues of your new state model? Are they the same as the original model? : The eigenvalues of matrix They are the same to the eigenvalues of matrix A. 3. Is any of the system controllability properties changed? If yes, explain. Yes. Since rank of the new controllability matrix has rank 3 more than the original controllability matrix. 4. Is any of the system observability properties changed? If yes, explain. No. Since rank of the new observability matrix has rank 4.

= 1 = 0

0 1 0 0

0]

Page 12