I have a frustrating error when using Matlab where I'm trying to simulate a continuous time system in discrete time.
Ts = 0.01;
A=[-0.313 0 56.7;
0 56.7 0;
-0.0139 0 0.426];
B = [0.232; 0; 0.0203];
C = [0 1 0];
D = 0;
SYSC = ss(A,B,C,D);
SYSD = c2d(SYSC,Ts);
t = linspace(0,10,10/0.01)';
u = zeros(1000,3);
u(:) = 0.2;
lsim(SYSD,u,t);
I am getting the error:
When simulating the response to a specific input signal, the
input data U must be a matrix with as many rows as samples in
the time vector T, and as many columns as input channels
What is meant by input channels here? Overall I'm not sure how I can fix this error. I have a set time for which I want the simulation to run but I do not know how to set up my vector of inputs correctly. I am modeling three states.
If your input matrix is B = [0.232; 0; 0.0203] and is a 3-by-1 column vector, then the linear system given by A*x + B*u only has one control input.
So u should be:
u = zeros(1000,1);
u(:) = 0.2;
And you can simulate the discrete time system using
lsim(SYSD,u,[]);
Note that you don't need to define the time vector in lsim for the discrete simulation because u is sampled at the same rate as SYSD.
If the B matrix was 3-by-3, then you would need to have 3 control inputs.
Related
while using the lsim command of matlab I found out that the initial condition in my program doesn't affect the simulation's output.
y = lsim(F,input,time,x0);
Where F is a transfer function, and x0 the initial condition that I calculate with the state-space model.
The value of x0 doesn't affect y, I even replaced it with different numbers and the simulation's output y is always the same.
I'm actually trying to get the parameters of the tf from a real measured output. So that's the main part of the code:
tsmpl = 1e-2;
Sizeof_y = length(y_real);
R = zeros(Sizeof_y,3);
R(1,:) = [y_real(1) input(1) 0];
for i=2:Sizeof_y
R(i,:)=[y_real(i-1) input(i) input(i-1)];
end
p = pinv(R)*y_real;
z = tf('z',tsmpl);
num = p(2)*z+p(3);
den = z-p(1);
F = num/den;
sys = ss(F);
x0 = (y_real(1) - (sys.d*sig(1)))*pinv(sys.c);
y = lsim(F,input,time,x0);
y_real is the measured output. It's a vector of complexe numbers.
time is the time vector that represents the duration of the process. (given by the measurment) time = 6:0.01:24
input represents the test signal which is a vector defined like this:
Size_input = length(time);
Size_sine = length(halftime) ; %halftime is the duration of the exitation also known from the measurment
input = zeros(Size_input,1);
input(1:Size_sine) = complex(30);
Vectors y_real, time, and input have the same length.
I would be thankful for any idea :))
I have a state space system with matrices A,B,C and D.
I can either create a state space system, sys1 = ss(A,B,C,D), of it or compute the transfer function matrix, sys2 = C*inv(z*I - A)*B + D
However when I draw the bode plot of both systems, they are different while they should be the same.
What is going wrong here? Does anyone have a clue? I know btw that the bodeplot generated by sys1 is correct.
The system can be downloaded here: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/20782274/system.mat
clear all;
close all;
clc;
Ts = 0.01;
z = tf('z',Ts);
% Discrete system
A = [0 1 0; 0 0 1; 0.41 -1.21 1.8];
B = [0; 0; 0.01];
C = [7 -73 170];
D = 1;
% Set as state space
sys1 = ss(A,B,C,D,Ts);
% Compute transfer function
sys2 = C*inv(z*eye(3) - A)*B + D;
% Compute the actual transfer function
[num,den] = ss2tf(A,B,C,D);
sys3 = tf(num,den,Ts);
% Show bode
bode(sys1,'b',sys2,'r--',sys3,'g--');
Edit: I made a small mistake, the transfer function matrix is sys2 = C*inv(z*I - A)*B + D, instead of sys2 = C*inv(z*I - A)*B - D which I did wrote done before. The problem still holds.
Edit 2: I have noticted that when I compute the denominator, it is correct.
syms z;
collect(det(z*eye(3) - A),z)
Your assumption that sys2 = C*inv(z*I- A)*B + D is incorrect. The correct equivalent to your state-space system (A,B,C,D) is sys2 = C*inv(s*I- A)*B + D. If you want to express it in terms of z, you'll need to invert the relationship z = exp(s*T). sys1 is the correct representation of your state-space system. What I would suggest for sys2 is to do as follows:
sys1 = ss(mjlsCE.A,mjlsCE.B,mjlsCE.C,mjlsCE.D,Ts);
sys1_c = d2c(sys1);
s = tf('s');
sys2_c = sys1_c.C*inv(s*eye(length(sys1_c.A)) - sys1_c.A)*sys1_c.B + sys1_c.D;
sys2_d = c2d(sys2_c,Ts);
That should give you the correct result.
Due to inacurracy of the inverse function extra unobservable poles and zeros are added to the system. For this reason you need to compute the minimal realization of your transfer function matrix.
Meaning
% Compute transfer function
sys2 = minreal(C*inv(z*eye(3) - A)*B + D);
What you are noticing is actually a numerical instability regarding pole-zero pair cancellations.
If you run the following code:
A = [0, 1, 0; 0, 0, 1; 0.41, -1.21, 1.8] ;
B = [0; 0; 0.01] ;
C = [7, -73, 170] ;
D = 1 ;
sys_ss = ss(A, B, C, D) ;
sys_tf_simp = tf(sys_ss) ;
s = tf('s') ;
sys_tf_full = tf(C*inv(s*eye(3) - A)*B + D) ;
zero(sys_tf_simp)
zero(sys_tf_full)
pole(sys_tf_simp)
pole(sys_tf_full)
you will see that the transfer function formulated by matrices directly has a lot more poles and zeros than the one formulated by MatLab's tf function. You will also notice that every single pair of these "extra" poles and zeros are equal- meaning that they cancel with each other if you were to simply the rational expression. MatLab's tf presents the simplified form, with equal pole-zero pairs cancelled out. This is algebraically equivalent to the unsimplified form, but not numerically.
When you call bode on the unsimplified transfer function, MatLab begins its numerical plotting routine with the pole-zero pairs not cancelled algebraically. If the computer was perfect, the result would be the same as in the simplified case. However, numerical error when evaluating the numerator and denominators effectively leaves some of the pole-zero pairs "uncancelled" and as many of these poles are in the far right side of the s plane, they drastically influence the output behavior.
Check out this link for info on this same problem but from the perspective of design: http://ctms.engin.umich.edu/CTMS/index.php?aux=Extras_PZ
In your original code, you can think of the output drawn in green as what the naive designer wanted to see when he cancelled all his unstable poles with zeros, but the output drawn in red is what he actually got because in practice, finite-precision and real-world tolerances prevent the poles and zeros from cancelling perfectly.
Why is an unobservable / uncontrollable pole? I think this issue comes only because the inverse of a transfer function matrix is inaccurate in Matlab.
Note:
A is 3x3 and the minimal realization has also order 3.
What you did is the inverse of a transfer function matrix, not a symbolic or numeric matrix.
# Discrete system
Ts = 0.01;
A = [0 1 0; 0 0 1; 0.41 -1.21 1.8];
B = [0; 0; 0.01];
C = [7 -73 170];
D = 1;
z = tf('z', Ts)) # z is a discrete tf
A1 = z*eye(3) - A # a tf matrix with a direct feedthrough matrix A
# inverse it, multiply with C and B from left and right, and plus D
G = D + C*inv(A1)*B
G is now a scalar (SISO) transfer function.
Without "minreal", G has order 9 (funny, I don't know how Matlab computes it, perhaps the "Adj(.)/det(.)" method). Matlab cannot cancel the common factors in the numerator and the denominator, because z is of class 'tf' rather than a symbolic variable.
Do you agree or do I have misunderstanding?
I have the following Markov chain:
This chain shows the states of the Spaceship, which is in the asteroid belt: S1 - is serviceable, S2 - is broken. 0.12 - the probability of destroying the Spaceship by a collision with an asteroid. 0.88 - the probability of that a collision will not be critical. Need to find the probability of a serviceable condition of the ship after the third collision.
Analytical solution showed the response - 0.681. But it is necessary to solve this problem by simulation method using any modeling tool (MATLAB Simulink, AnyLogic, Scilab, etc.).
Do you know what components should be used to simulate this process in Simulink or any other simulation environment? Any examples or links.
First, we know the three step probability transition matrix contains the answer (0.6815).
% MATLAB R2019a
P = [0.88 0.12;
0 1];
P3 = P*P*P
P(1,1) % 0.6815
Approach 1: Requires Econometrics Toolbox
This approach uses the dtmc() and simulate() functions.
First, create the Discrete Time Markov Chain (DTMC) with the probability transition matrix, P, and using dtmc().
mc = dtmc(P); % Create the DTMC
numSteps = 3; % Number of collisions
You can get one sample path easily using simulate(). Pay attention to how you specify the initial conditions.
% One Sample Path
rng(8675309) % for reproducibility
X = simulate(mc,numSteps,'X0',[1 0])
% Multiple Sample Paths
numSamplePaths = 3;
X = simulate(mc,numSteps,'X0',[numSamplePaths 0]) % returns a 4 x 3 matrix
The first row is the X0 row for the starting state (initial condition) of the DTMC. The second row is the state after 1 transition (X1). Thus, the fourth row is the state after 3 transitions (collisions).
% 50000 Sample Paths
rng(8675309) % for reproducibility
k = 50000;
X = simulate(mc,numSteps,'X0',[k 0]); % returns a 4 x 50000 matrix
prob_survive_3collisions = sum(X(end,:)==1)/k % 0.6800
We can bootstrap a 95% Confidence Interval on the mean probability to survive 3 collisions to get 0.6814 ± 0.00069221, or rather, [0.6807 0.6821], which contains the result.
numTrials = 40;
ProbSurvive_3collisions = zeros(numTrials,1);
for trial = 1:numTrials
Xtrial = simulate(mc,numSteps,'X0',[k 0]);
ProbSurvive_3collisions(trial) = sum(Xtrial(end,:)==1)/k;
end
% Mean +/- Halfwidth
alpha = 0.05;
mean_prob_survive_3collisions = mean(ProbSurvive_3collisions)
hw = tinv(1-(0.5*alpha), numTrials-1)*(std(ProbSurvive_3collisions)/sqrt(numTrials))
ci95 = [mean_prob_survive_3collisions-hw mean_prob_survive_3collisions+hw]
maxNumCollisions = 10;
numSamplePaths = 50000;
ProbSurvive = zeros(maxNumCollisions,1);
for numCollisions = 1:maxNumCollisions
Xc = simulate(mc,numCollisions,'X0',[numSamplePaths 0]);
ProbSurvive(numCollisions) = sum(Xc(end,:)==1)/numSamplePaths;
end
For a more complex system you'll want to use Stateflow or SimEvents, but for this simple example all you need is a single Unit Delay block (output = 0 => S1, output = 1 => S2), with a Switch block, a Random block, and some comparison blocks to construct the logic determining the next value of the state.
Presumably you must execute the simulation a (very) large number of times and average the results to get a statistically significant output.
You'll need to change the "seed" of the random generator each time you run the simulation.
This can be done by setting the seed to be "now" (or something similar to that).
Alternatively you could quite easily vectorize the model so that you only need to execute it once.
If you want to simulate this, it is fairly easy in matlab:
servicable = 1;
t = 0;
while servicable =1
t = t+1;
servicable = rand()<=0.88
end
Now t represents the amount of steps before the ship is broken.
Wrap this in a for loop and you can do as many simulations as you like.
Note that this can actually give you the distribution, if you want to know it after 3 times, simply add && t<3 to the while condition.
I'm completely lost at this using MATLAB functions, so here is the case:
lets assume I have SUM=0, and
I have a constant probability P that the user gives me, and I have to compare this constant P, with other M (also user gives M) random probabilities, if P is larger I add 1 to SUM, if P is smaller I add -1 to SUM... and at the end I want print on the screen the graph of the process.
I managed till now to make only one stage with this code:
function [result] = ex1(p)
if (rand>=p) result=1;
else result=-1;
end
(its like M=1)
How do You suggest I can modify this code in order to make it work the way I described it before (including getting a graph) ?
Or maybe I'm getting the logic wrong? the question says I get 1 with probability P, and -1 with probability (1-P), and the SUM is the same
Many thanks
I'm not sure how you achieve your input, but this should get you on the way:
p = 0.5; % Constant probability
m = 10;
randoms = rand(m,1) % Random probabilities
results = ones(m,1);
idx = find(randoms < p)
results(idx) = -1;
plot(cumsum(results))
For m = 1000:
You can do it like this:
p = 0.25; % example data
M = 20; % example data
random = rand(M,1); % generate values
y = cumsum(2*(random>=p)-1); % compute cumulative sum of +1/-1
plot(y) % do the plot
The important function here is cumsum, which does the cumulative sum on the sequence of +1/-1 values generated by 2*(random>=p)-1.
Example graph with p=0.5, M=2000:
I have a function of this form in MATLAB,
C=S*e^(L*t)*inv(S)*C_0
where my
S=[-2 -3;3 -2]
L=[0.5 0; 0 1.5]
C_0=[1; 1]
I need to plot this function with respect to time. My output C is a 2-by-1 matrix.
What I have done is computed e^L separately using b=expm(L) and then I inserted mpower(b,t) into the function. So my resulting function in the script looks like
b=expm(L);
C=S*mpower(b,t)*inv(S)*C_0;
Now, how should I go about plotting this w.r.t time. I tried defining the time vector and then using it, but quite obviously I get the error message which says matrix dimensions do not agree. Can someone give me a suggestion?
You can probably do this in a vectorised manner but if you're not worried about speed or succinct code, why not just write a for loop?
ts = 1 : 100;
Cs = zeros(2, length(ts) );
S = [-2 -3;3 -2];
L = [0.5 0; 0 1.5];
C_0 = [1; 1];
for ii = 1 : length(ts)
b = expm(L);
Cs(:,ii) = S*mpower(b,ts(ii))*inv(S)*C_0;
end
ts contains the time values, Cs contains the values of C at each time.