Homework 7, due March 9, 2011.

Due Wednesday, March 9, 2011.
Post Reply
goodwine
Site Admin
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 4:54 pm
Location: 376 Fitzpatrick
Contact:

Homework 7, due March 9, 2011.

Post by goodwine »

Reading: all of Chapter 7, Chapter 8, sections 1-3.

Exercises: 7.12, 7.13, 7.17, 7.20, 8.3 (numbers 8 and 11 only).

Note: there is a typo in 7.12. I'm pretty sure the "5x5" matrix should be "10x10".
Bill Goodwine, 376 Fitzpatrick
ceramics

Re: Homework 7, due March 9, 2011.

Post by ceramics »

For problem 7.12, since it is a five mass problem, don't we need 10 eigenvalues for the place() command?
goodwine
Site Admin
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 4:54 pm
Location: 376 Fitzpatrick
Contact:

Re: Homework 7, due March 9, 2011.

Post by goodwine »

ceramics wrote:For problem 7.12, since it is a five mass problem, don't we need 10 eigenvalues for the place() command?
Yes. Just select more consistent with the given ones.
Bill Goodwine, 376 Fitzpatrick
Adam W.

Re: Homework 7, due March 9, 2011.

Post by Adam W. »

Professor, using

Code: Select all

place(A,B,P)
apparently only functions for A(nxn) and B(n) with n = 15 (returning an error past that):

Code: Select all

  ??? Error using ==> place at 172
The "place" command could not place the poles at the specified locations. Probable causes include:
* (A,B) is nearly uncontrollable
* The specified locations are too close to each other. 
[/color]
while

Code: Select all

acker(A,B,P)
is said to break down in accuracy past an order of 10, although it can actually compute the values without returning an error statement.

Should we, then, resort to a five-mass system as originally stated?
goodwine
Site Admin
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 4:54 pm
Location: 376 Fitzpatrick
Contact:

Re: Homework 7, due March 9, 2011.

Post by goodwine »

Adam W. wrote:Professor, using

Code: Select all

place(A,B,P)
apparently only functions for A(nxn) and B(n) with n = 15 (returning an error past that):

Code: Select all

  ??? Error using ==> place at 172
The "place" command could not place the poles at the specified locations. Probable causes include:
* (A,B) is nearly uncontrollable
* The specified locations are too close to each other. 
[/color]
while

Code: Select all

acker(A,B,P)
is said to break down in accuracy past an order of 10, although it can actually compute the values without returning an error statement.

Should we, then, resort to a five-mass system as originally stated?
Yes, 5 masses is ok.
Bill Goodwine, 376 Fitzpatrick
sprender

Re: Homework 7, due March 9, 2011.

Post by sprender »

If you have it, can you post the code that implemented the lqr command? Thanks.
goodwine
Site Admin
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 4:54 pm
Location: 376 Fitzpatrick
Contact:

Re: Homework 7, due March 9, 2011.

Post by goodwine »

sprender wrote:If you have it, can you post the code that implemented the lqr command? Thanks.
I'll get them posted tomorrow morning.
Bill Goodwine, 376 Fitzpatrick
goodwine
Site Admin
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 4:54 pm
Location: 376 Fitzpatrick
Contact:

Re: Homework 7, due March 9, 2011.

Post by goodwine »

goodwine wrote:
sprender wrote:If you have it, can you post the code that implemented the lqr command? Thanks.
I'll get them posted tomorrow morning.
Done!
Bill Goodwine, 376 Fitzpatrick
whawes

Re: Homework 7, due March 9, 2011.

Post by whawes »

For problem 7.12, do we include the forcing function sin(omega*t) with the stabilizing force?

i.e.,

Code: Select all

 w = 0.25;
    f = sin(w*t);
    xdot = A*x + [0;(f+k1*x(1)+k2*x(2)+k3*x(3)+k4*x(4)+k5*x(5)+k6*x(6)+k7*x(7)+k8*x(8)+k9*x(9)+k10*x(10));0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0];
goodwine
Site Admin
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 4:54 pm
Location: 376 Fitzpatrick
Contact:

Re: Homework 7, due March 9, 2011.

Post by goodwine »

whawes wrote:For problem 7.12, do we include the forcing function sin(omega*t) with the stabilizing force?

i.e.,

Code: Select all

 w = 0.25;
    f = sin(w*t);
    xdot = A*x + [0;(f+k1*x(1)+k2*x(2)+k3*x(3)+k4*x(4)+k5*x(5)+k6*x(6)+k7*x(7)+k8*x(8)+k9*x(9)+k10*x(10));0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0];
The design of the controller is only to stabilize the system, so the literal answer is no. It would be interesting to see if the controller reduces the effect of the applied force on the motion of the system, however.
Bill Goodwine, 376 Fitzpatrick
sprender

Re: Homework 7, due March 9, 2011.

Post by sprender »

For the second part of problem 17 (with damping), can we use a computer to solve for the eigenvalues and just report the normalized vectors in our answer?
goodwine
Site Admin
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 4:54 pm
Location: 376 Fitzpatrick
Contact:

Re: Homework 7, due March 9, 2011.

Post by goodwine »

sprender wrote:For the second part of problem 17 (with damping), can we use a computer to solve for the eigenvalues and just report the normalized vectors in our answer?
You only need to solve the case with damping numerically. You are to use the undamped cases as a guide since the damping is so light.
Bill Goodwine, 376 Fitzpatrick
vsteger

Re: Homework 7, due March 9, 2011.

Post by vsteger »

Where do the initial conditions fit in the place() function inputs, if anywhere?
goodwine
Site Admin
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 4:54 pm
Location: 376 Fitzpatrick
Contact:

Re: Homework 7, due March 9, 2011.

Post by goodwine »

vsteger wrote:Where do the initial conditions fit in the place() function inputs, if anywhere?
The place function specifies the eigenvalues, so it has nothing to do with initial conditions.
Bill Goodwine, 376 Fitzpatrick
Post Reply

Return to “AME 30315, Homework 7”