0% found this document useful (0 votes)
114 views9 pages

Solutions for Exercises in Dynamic Systems and Control Engineering by Jalili and Candelino

The document discusses the classification of various systems based on their governing equations, identifying them as lumped-parameters or distributed-parameters, time-varying or time-invariant, and linear or nonlinear. It provides examples of systems and demonstrates the testing of properties such as scaling and additivity to determine linearity. Additionally, it explores the effects of changing materials on the spring constants of cantilever beams and provides a MATLAB program for plotting variations in spring constants.

Uploaded by

Donya Labbafi
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
114 views9 pages

Solutions for Exercises in Dynamic Systems and Control Engineering by Jalili and Candelino

The document discusses the classification of various systems based on their governing equations, identifying them as lumped-parameters or distributed-parameters, time-varying or time-invariant, and linear or nonlinear. It provides examples of systems and demonstrates the testing of properties such as scaling and additivity to determine linearity. Additionally, it explores the effects of changing materials on the spring constants of cantilever beams and provides a MATLAB program for plotting variations in spring constants.

Uploaded by

Donya Labbafi
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 9

You can access complete document on following URL.

Contact me if site not loaded


https://solumanu.com/product/dynamic-systems-and-control-engineering-jalili/
1
sm
Considering the systems in (a)-(d) below, we can classify each as (1) lumped-parameters or
tb9
distributed-parameters, (2) time-varying or time-invariant, and (3) linear or nonlinear.

Given a system modeled by the governing equation

dx(t )
cos(3t ) + x(t ) = sin(t ),
8@
dt

we may first notice that this system is described by an ordinary differential equation, where
time is the only dependent variable. Therefore, this equation must describe a lumped-
parameters model. Next, we notice that x (t ) multiplies the time-varying coefficient cos(3t ).
Therefore, the model is time-varying. Finally, we notice that all terms containing x (t ) or x (t )
have coefficients that are independent of x (t ) or its derivatives. Therefore, the system is linear
and is described by a linear time-varying lumped-parameters model.
gm

Given a system modeled by the governing equation

2   2 y ( x, t )   2 y ( x, t )
 EI ( x )  +  A = 0,
x 2  x 2  t 2
ail

we may first notice that this system contains partial derivatives with respect to time and x.
Therefore, this equation must be a distributed-parameters model. Next, we notice that all
coefficients of the dependent variable y ( x, t ) and its derivatives are independent of time.
.co

Therefore, this model is time-invariant. Finally, all coefficients of y ( x, t ) and its derivatives
are independent of y ( x, t ). Therefore, the system is linear and is described by a linear time-
invariant distributed-parameters model.

Given a system modeled by the governing equation


m

d 3 x dx
x + + 5x = t ,
dt 3 dt

Contact me in order to access the whole complete document - Email: [email protected]


WhatsApp: https://wa.me/message/2H3BV2L5TTSUF1 - Telegram: https://t.me/solutionmanual
we may first notice that this system is described by an ordinary differential equation, where
time is the only dependent variable. Therefore, this equation must describe a lumped-
parameters model. Next, we notice that all coefficients of the dependent variable x (t ) and its
derivatives have no explicit dependence on time. Therefore, this model is time-invariant.
Finally, we notice that the coefficient of x(3) (t ) is a function of the dependent variable x(t ).
Therefore, the system is nonlinear and is described by a nonlinear time-invariant lumped-
parameters model.

Given a system modeled by the governing equation

t 2 x + x = e−t .

we may first notice that this system is described by an ordinary differential equation, where
time is the only dependent variable. Therefore, this equation must describe a lumped-
parameters model. Next, we notice that the coefficient of x (t ) is an explicit function of time
t 2 . Therefore, this model is time-varying. Finally, we notice that all terms containing x (t ) or
x (t ) have coefficients that are independent of x (t ) or its derivatives. Therefore, the system is
linear and is described by a linear time-varying lumped-parameters model.
3

Assuming the pairs of inputs and outputs shown in Figure ES1.2 were produced by the same
system y = f ( x), that system cannot be linear. To demonstrate this fact, consider that the
second input x2 is twice the magnitude of x1. However, the second output y2 is 2 23 the
magnitude of y1. Therefore, f (ax)  af ( x). The scaling property does not hold, and the
system must be nonlinear.
Alternatively, if we consider the response of f ( x) to the third input x3 , we notice that
x3 = 12 x1. However, y3 = f ( x3 ) = f ( 12 x1 )  12 f ( x1 ). Again, the scaling property does not hold.
Moreover, the response to x3 is delayed for a brief period before the response y3 rises to 0.1.
Therefore, superposing inputs x1 = x3 + x3 gives outputs f ( x1 ) = f ( x3 + x3 )  f ( x3 ) + f ( x 3 ),
and we see that the additivity property does not hold. In fact, neither scaling nor additivity
holds between any of the input/output pairs shown.

Three input/output pairs observed from a single system.


Considering a system described by the governing equation

mx + bx + kx = 0,

we can test for the scaling property by applying inputs

x → y1 = f ( x) = mx + bx + kx
ax → y2 = f (ax) = max + bax + kax

and relating the outputs as

f (ax) = a ( mx + bx + kx )
= af ( x).

Therefore, the scaling property holds.


Now, to test for additivity, we can apply the inputs

x1 → y1 = f ( x1 ) = mx1 + bx1 + kx1


x2 → y2 = f ( x2 ) = mx2 + bx2 + kx2
d 2 ( x1 + x2 ) d ( x1 + x2 )
x1 + x2 → y12 = f ( x1 + x2 ) = m 2
+b + k ( x1 + x2 )
dt dt

and compare the outputs as

f ( x1 + x2 ) = m ( x1 + x2 ) + b ( x1 + x2 ) + k ( x1 + x2 )
= mx1 + bx1 + kx1 + mx2 + bx2 + kx2
= f ( x1 ) + f ( x2 ),

which shows that f ( x1 ) + f ( x2 ) = f ( x1 + x2 ), and the additivity property holds. Therefore, the
system is linear.

Considering a system described by the governing equation

d3x
+ xx + kx = 0,
dt 3

we can test for the scaling property by applying inputs

x → y1 = f ( x) = x(3) + xx + kx
ax → y2 = f (ax) = ax(3) + ( ax )( ax ) + kax
5

and relating the outputs as

f (ax) = ax (3) + a 2 xx + kax


 af ( x).

Therefore, the scaling property does not hold, and the system is nonlinear.
Alternatively, to test for additivity, we can apply the inputs

x1 → y1 = f ( x1 ) = x1(3) + x1 x1 + kx1
x2 → y2 = f ( x2 ) = x2(3) + x2 x2 + kx2
d 3 ( x1 + x2 ) d ( x1 + x2 )
x1 + x2 → y12 = f ( x1 + x2 ) = 3
+ ( x1 + x2 ) + k ( x1 + x2 )
dt dt

and compare the outputs as

f ( x1 + x2 ) = x1(3) + x2(3) + ( x1 + x2 )( x1 + x2 ) + k ( x1 + x2 )
= x1(3) + x1 x1 + kx1 + x2(3) + x2 x2 + kx2 + x2 x1 + x1 x2
= f ( x1 ) + f ( x2 ) + x2 x1 + x1 x2
 f ( x1 ) + f ( x2 ),

which shows that f ( x1 ) + f ( x2 )  f ( x1 + x2 ), and the additivity property does not hold. Again,
the system is nonlinear.

Considering a system described by the governing equation

d4x 2 dx
4
+ (1 + b ) = 0,
dt dt

we can test for the scaling property by applying inputs

d4x 2 dx
x → y1 = f ( x) = + (1 + b )
dt 4 dt
d ( ax )
4
2 d ( ax )
ax → y2 = f (ax) = 4
+ (1 + b )
dt dt

and relating the outputs as

f (ax) = ax (4) + (1 + b ) ax
2

(
= a x (4) + (1 + b ) x
2
)
= af ( x).
Therefore, the scaling property holds.
Now, to test for additivity, we can apply the inputs

d 4 x1 2 dx
x1 → y1 = f ( x1 ) = 4
+ (1 + b ) 1
dt dt
4
d x 2 dx2
x2 → y2 = f ( x2 ) = 42 + (1 + b )
dt dt
d ( x1 + x2 )
4
2 d ( x1 + x2 )
x1 + x2 → y12 = f ( x1 + x2 ) = 4
+ (1 + b )
dt dt

and compare the outputs as

f ( x1 + x2 ) = x1(4) + x2(4) + (1 + b ) ( x1 + x2 )
2

= x1(4) + (1 + b ) x1 + x2(4) + (1 + b ) x2
2 2

= f ( x1 ) + f ( x2 ),

which shows that f ( x1 ) + f ( x2 ) = f ( x1 + x2 ), and the additivity property holds. Therefore, the
system is linear.

Considering a system described by the governing equation

x + kx (1 + x2 ) = 0,

we can test for the scaling property by applying inputs

x → y1 = f ( x) = x + kx (1 + x 2 )

ax → y2 = f (ax) = ax + k ( ax ) 1 + ( ax ) ( 2
)
and relating the outputs as

(
f (ax) = ax + k ( ax ) 1 + ( ax )
2
)
= ax + kax (1 + a x 2 2
)
(
= a x + kx (1 + x 2
) ) + ka x 3 2
− kax 2
= af ( x) + ka 3 x 2 − kax 2
 af ( x).

Therefore, the scaling property does not hold, and the system is nonlinear.
Alternatively, to test for additivity, we can apply the inputs
7

x1 → y1 = f ( x1 ) = x1 + kx1 (1 + x12 )
x2 → y2 = f ( x2 ) = x2 + kx2 (1 + x2 2 )
d 2 ( x1 + x2 )
x1 + x2 → y12 = f ( x1 + x2 ) =
dt 2 (
+ k ( x1 + x2 ) 1 + ( x1 + x2 )
2
)
and compare the outputs as

f ( x1 + x2 ) = x1 + x2 + k ( x1 + x2 ) (1 + x12 + 2 x1 x2 + x2 2 )
= x1 + kx1 (1 + x12 + 2 x1 x2 + x2 2 ) + x2 + kx2 (1 + x12 + 2 x1 x2 + x2 2 )
= f ( x1 ) + f ( x2 ) + kx1 ( 2 x1 x2 + x2 2 ) + kx2 ( x12 + 2 x1 x2 )
 f ( x1 ) + f ( x2 ),

which shows that f ( x1 ) + f ( x2 )  f ( x1 + x2 ), and the additivity property does not hold. Again,
the system is nonlinear.
Considering a linear time-invariant system y = f ( x ) that produces the input–output pair x1
and y1 shown in Figure ES1.4a, the expected system response y2 for the more complex input
x2 , shown in Figure ES1.4b, can be found by applying the superposition principle as
demonstrated in Figure ES1.4c.

Known input–output behavior of a linear time-invariant system.

More complex input to be applied to the system in E1.4.

Response to the more complex input of Figure ES1.4b.

Notice, when the complex input is applied, changes to the input occur quickly enough that
the response does not finish its transient portion before the next step begins to take effect (e.g.,
the input reaches a peak amplitude of 2, but the output reaches a peak of only about 1.8).
To determine the effect of changing the spring material from steel to aluminum, we can
begin by recognizing that the spring constant for the cantilever beam is given by

Ebh3
K= ,
4 L3

where the moduli of elasticity for steel and aluminum can be taken, respectively, as
Esteel = 3  107 and EAl =1107. Therefore, the stiffness of geometrically identical
cantilever beams of steel and aluminum can be found as

Esteel bh3 EAl bh3


K steel = and K Al = .
4 L3 4L3

Now, writing Esteel as a function of E Al , we find

Esteel 3  107
= = 3 → Esteel = 3E Al ,
E Al 1  107

and the spring constant of the steel cantilever can be rewritten as

3EAl bh3 EAl bh3


K steel = = 3 = 3K Al .
4 L3 4 L3

Therefore, the cantilever beam becomes three times softer when the spring material is
changed from steel to aluminum. Similarly, torsion bar springs and tension rod springs also
become three times softer when the material is changed from steel to aluminum.

To plot variations in the spring constants of cantilever beams, torsion bars, and tension rods
as a function of spring length L, we can write a MATLAB program like the one below:

% Parameter definitions
E_steel = 3e7; % Modulus of Elasticity in lb-f/inch^2
b = 1; % Width in inches
h = 1; % Height in inches
r = 1; % Radius in inches

You might also like