MHB Finding State Matrices for a Mass Spring System

Dustinsfl
Messages
2,217
Reaction score
5
I am trying to find the state equations for a mass spring system.
I found the transfer function to be
\[
H(s) = \frac{X_1(s)}{F(s)} = \frac{m_2s^2 + b_2s + k}
{s\big[m_1m_2s^3 + (m_2b_1 + m_1b_2)s^2 +
(k(m_1 + m_2) + b_1b_2)s + k(b_1 + b_2)\big]}
\]
I found the transfer function from
\begin{align}
m_1\ddot{x}_1 &= F - b_1\dot{x}_1 - k(x_1 - x_2)\\
m_2\ddot{x}_2 &= - b_2\dot{x}_2 - k(x_2 - x_1)
\end{align}
So I am trying to find the state matrices \(\mathbf{A}\), \(\mathbf{B}\), \(\mathbf{C}\), and \(\mathbf{D}\) where
\begin{align}
\dot{\mathbf{x}} &= \mathbf{A}\mathbf{x} + \mathbf{B}F\\
\mathbf{y} &= \mathbf{C}\mathbf{x} + \mathbf{D}F
\end{align}
The transfer function is extremely complicated though. How can I obtain the state matrices?

I do know what the matrices are, but I can't find obtain them:
\begin{align}
\mathbf{A} &=
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
-\frac{k}{m_1} & -\frac{b_1}{m_1} & \frac{k}{m_1} & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
\frac{k}{m_2} & 0 & -\frac{k}{m_2} & -\frac{b_2}{m_2}
\end{bmatrix}\\
\mathbf{B} &=
\begin{bmatrix}
0\\
\frac{1}{m_1}\\
0\\
0
\end{bmatrix}\\
\mathbf{C} &=
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0
\end{bmatrix}\\
\mathbf{D} &= \mathbf{0}
\end{align}
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
We can write this as one differential equation:
\[
m_1m_2\ddddot{w} + (m_1b_2 + m_2b_1)\dddot{w} + (k(m_1 + m_2) + b_1b_2)\ddot{w} + k(b_1 + b_2)\dot{w} = m_2\ddot{u} + b_2\dot{u} + ku
\]
If the LHS had only a 3rd time derivative and the RHS had only a first time derivative, I could follow the (harder) labeled example here.
But I have tried to follow that idea by setting up the q derivatives as
\begin{alignat}{2}
q_1 &= w\\
q_2 &= \dot{w}\\
q_3 &= \ddot{w}\\
q_4 &= \dddot{w} - m_2\dot{u} - b_2u\\
\dot{q}_1 &= \dot{w} &&={} q_2\\
\dot{q}_2 &= \ddot{w} &&={} q_3\\
\dot{q}_3 &= \dddot{w} &&={} q_4\\
\dot{q}_4 &= \ddddot{w} -m_2\ddot{u} - b_2\dot{u}
\end{alignat}
However, this didn't seem to work. Should the q's be setup differently? Or am I not implementing this correctly?
From my implementation, I had
\begin{align}
\dot{q}_4 &= ku - (m_2^2b_1 + m_1m_2b_2)\dot{u} - (m_2b_1b_2 + m_1b_2^2)u - (m_2b_1 + m_1b_2)q_4 - q_3(k(m_1 + m_2) + b_1b_2) - k(b_1 + b_2)q_2
\end{align}
However, I am suspect of
\[
- (m_2^2b_1 + m_1m_2b_2)\dot{u} - (m_2b_1b_2 + m_1b_2^2)u - (m_2b_1 + m_1b_2)q_4
\]
since there is a \(\dot{u}\) present which came from
\[
\dddot{w}(m_2b_1 + m_1b_2) = (m_2\dot{u} + b_2u + q_4)(m_2b_1 + m_1b_2).
\]
In the harder example, it says "The method has failed because there is a derivative of the input on the right hand, and that is not allowed in a state space model." This cause the concern with \(\dot{u}\) in \(\dot{q}_4\). Thus, I am lead to believe I need a slightly different setup for this problem.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top