You are on page 1of 52

Sinais e Sistemas

Aula 05
1
Espao de Estados

Estado: conjunto de variveis capaz de explicar


completamente o comportamento do sistema
submetido a um conjunto de entradas
2
Espao de Estados

Variveis de Entrada

Variveis de Sada

Variveis de Estado
3
Espao de Estados

Com base no modelo e no conhecimento das


variveis de estado no instante atual (t=t0) e
das variveis de entrada da em diante (t>t0)
possvel determinar o comportamento do
sistema
4
Exemplo
5
Conceito de Estado

Sistemas fsicos

Sistemas encontrados na natureza

Biolgicos

Econmicos
6
Modelos

Podem ser lineares (circuito eltrico com amp-op)


ou no-lineares (pndulo invertido)

Podem ser explicados com uma nica EDO


(circuito eltrico com amp-op) ou um conjunto de
EDOs que interage (pndulo invertido)
7
Forma EE

x(t): vetor das variveis de estado (ou somente


estados)

u(t): vetor das variveis de entrada

y(t): vetor das variveis de sada


7.4 State Space Representation 267
The above discussion illustrates the wide range of formats in which
CTDS conceptual models can evolve. This same variability is certainly
present in the realm of DEDS models and its not surprising to encounter it
x(t) = f(x(t), u(t), t)
with: x(t
0
) = x
0
and y(t) = g(x(t)) .
(7.21a)
(7.21b)
Here x(t), u(t), and y(t) are vectors of dimension N, p, and q,
respectively, and represent the state, the input, and the output variables,
respectively, of the CTDS model. The functions f and g are likewise
vectors with dimensions that are consistent with usage. Equation (7.21a)
represents a set of N first-order differential equations and, as noted, the
initial conditions required for the solution of Equation (7.21a) are assumed
to be given. Equation (7.21b) makes provision for the situation where the
output variables of the model do not correspond directly to any of the state
variables but rather are prescribed functions of the state variables.
The existence of a state space representation for any CTDS model has
several important consequences. Among these is the fact that a very
substantial body of knowledge about equations of the form of Equation
(7.21) has evolved within the domain of applied mathematics. This
knowledge is therefore applicable for investigating the properties of CTDS
models. Included here are issues that range from the very fundamental, for
example, the question of the existence of solutions to the equations that
comprise the model, to issues that characterise the properties of the
solution, for example, stability. Exploration of these topics is, however,
beyond the scope of the considerations in this textbook. The interested
reader is encouraged to explore these topics in references such as [7.3] and
[7.4].
and w
1 (t) on h2 (t)) and nonautonomous (the outflow demand represents
an input to the model). The population model example presented in Equa-
mous.
again. However, CTDS models do have a particularly important feature in
this regard; namely, that it is possible to transform all of these formats into
a standard (canonical) form. This can be written as
tion (7.12) is a pair of first order non-linear equations that are autono-
resentation for the particular CTDS model. It has two components, the
the model. Neither, however, is a unique representation for the particular
low, there often are natural choices for the state variables, x
i
(t) which form
the elements of the state vector, x(t).
first are the state equations, given by Equation (7.21a) and the second
CTDS that is under consideration. Nevertheless, as we shall indicate be-
component, given by Equation (7.21b), is called the output equation of
The representation given in Equation (7.21) is called a state space rep-
8
Forma EE

x(t): vetor das variveis de estado (ou somente


estados)

u(t): vetor das variveis de entrada

y(t): vetor das variveis de sada


7.4 State Space Representation 267
The above discussion illustrates the wide range of formats in which
CTDS conceptual models can evolve. This same variability is certainly
present in the realm of DEDS models and its not surprising to encounter it
x(t) = f(x(t), u(t), t)
with: x(t
0
) = x
0
and y(t) = g(x(t)) .
(7.21a)
(7.21b)
Here x(t), u(t), and y(t) are vectors of dimension N, p, and q,
respectively, and represent the state, the input, and the output variables,
respectively, of the CTDS model. The functions f and g are likewise
vectors with dimensions that are consistent with usage. Equation (7.21a)
represents a set of N first-order differential equations and, as noted, the
initial conditions required for the solution of Equation (7.21a) are assumed
to be given. Equation (7.21b) makes provision for the situation where the
output variables of the model do not correspond directly to any of the state
variables but rather are prescribed functions of the state variables.
The existence of a state space representation for any CTDS model has
several important consequences. Among these is the fact that a very
substantial body of knowledge about equations of the form of Equation
(7.21) has evolved within the domain of applied mathematics. This
knowledge is therefore applicable for investigating the properties of CTDS
models. Included here are issues that range from the very fundamental, for
example, the question of the existence of solutions to the equations that
comprise the model, to issues that characterise the properties of the
solution, for example, stability. Exploration of these topics is, however,
beyond the scope of the considerations in this textbook. The interested
reader is encouraged to explore these topics in references such as [7.3] and
[7.4].
and w
1 (t) on h2 (t)) and nonautonomous (the outflow demand represents
an input to the model). The population model example presented in Equa-
mous.
again. However, CTDS models do have a particularly important feature in
this regard; namely, that it is possible to transform all of these formats into
a standard (canonical) form. This can be written as
tion (7.12) is a pair of first order non-linear equations that are autono-
resentation for the particular CTDS model. It has two components, the
the model. Neither, however, is a unique representation for the particular
low, there often are natural choices for the state variables, x
i
(t) which form
the elements of the state vector, x(t).
first are the state equations, given by Equation (7.21a) and the second
CTDS that is under consideration. Nevertheless, as we shall indicate be-
component, given by Equation (7.21b), is called the output equation of
The representation given in Equation (7.21) is called a state space rep-
Equaes de
Estado
9
Converso

Como converter um modelo na forma de EDO


(ou conjunto de EDOs) para a forma em EE?
10
Exemplo

EDO de ordem N
268 7. Modelling of Continuous-Time Dynamic Systems
there is one very practical benefit also associated with it. Recall that
generate the numerical solution of differential equations. This is a problem
that has been extensively studied in the applied mathematics literature and
an extensive body of relevant knowledge about the problem exists. But
with few exceptions, this body of knowledge addresses the problem of
solving a set of differential equations that are of the form of Equation (7.21
a) and likewise the available solution methods apply to this case. Thus the
transformation of a CTDS conceptual model into its state space
representation is an essential step for purposes of harnessing the numerical
tools for solution generation or more specifically, for carrying out
simulation activity.
7.4.2 The Transformation Process
If any CTDS conceptual model has a state space representation (i.e., can be
transformed into the form of Equation (7.21)), then this must certainly be
true for a linear model of the form:
) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (
) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (
0 1
2
2
1
1
0 1
2
1
1
1
t b t u b t u b t u b t u b
t a t y a t y a t y a t y
m
m
m
m
m
m
N
N
N
N
N

!
!
(7.22)
where we assume m N and that u(t) and y(t ), y(t ), . . . , y
(N-1)
(t ) are
First we consider the special case where m = 0; that is, the right-hand
side of Equation (7.22) contains no derivatives of the input function u(t).
(An example of this case is provided by the electrical circuit example,
specifically Equation (7.1). The transformation here is particularly
straighforward. Let
x
1
(t) = y(t)
x
2
(t) = y(t)
.
.
.
x
N
(t) = y
(N-1)
(t) .
(7.23)
The state equations are then:
In addition to important behavioural properties of a CTDS conce-
ptual model that can be explored via its state space representation,
experimentation with any CTDS model requires the means to
given. In the interest of notational convenience, we assume here that the
This general linear case is used to illustrate some features of the transfor-
mation process.
model has a single input variable u(t) and a single output variable y(t).
11
Exemplo

Considere que m=0

Ou seja, no lado direito da EDO no h derivadas


da entrada
12
Transformao

Bem direta
268 7. Modelling of Continuous-Time Dynamic Systems
there is one very practical benefit also associated with it. Recall that
generate the numerical solution of differential equations. This is a problem
that has been extensively studied in the applied mathematics literature and
an extensive body of relevant knowledge about the problem exists. But
with few exceptions, this body of knowledge addresses the problem of
solving a set of differential equations that are of the form of Equation (7.21
a) and likewise the available solution methods apply to this case. Thus the
transformation of a CTDS conceptual model into its state space
representation is an essential step for purposes of harnessing the numerical
tools for solution generation or more specifically, for carrying out
simulation activity.
7.4.2 The Transformation Process
If any CTDS conceptual model has a state space representation (i.e., can be
transformed into the form of Equation (7.21)), then this must certainly be
true for a linear model of the form:
) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (
) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (
0 1
2
2
1
1
0 1
2
1
1
1
t b t u b t u b t u b t u b
t a t y a t y a t y a t y
m
m
m
m
m
m
N
N
N
N
N

!
!
(7.22)
where we assume m N and that u(t) and y(t ), y(t ), . . . , y
(N-1)
(t ) are
First we consider the special case where m = 0; that is, the right-hand
side of Equation (7.22) contains no derivatives of the input function u(t).
(An example of this case is provided by the electrical circuit example,
specifically Equation (7.1). The transformation here is particularly
straighforward. Let
x
1
(t) = y(t)
x
2
(t) = y(t)
.
.
.
x
N
(t) = y
(N-1)
(t) .
(7.23)
The state equations are then:
In addition to important behavioural properties of a CTDS conce-
ptual model that can be explored via its state space representation,
experimentation with any CTDS model requires the means to
given. In the interest of notational convenience, we assume here that the
This general linear case is used to illustrate some features of the transfor-
mation process.
model has a single input variable u(t) and a single output variable y(t).
13
Transformao
7.4 State Space Representation 269
) ( ) (
) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (
) ( ) (
) ( ) (
1
0 1 2 1 1 0
3 2
2 1
t x t y with
t u b t x a t x a t x a t x
t x t x
t x t x
N N N

"
#
(7.24(a))
(7.24(b))
The more conventional compact form for Equation (7.24) is:
) ( ) (
) ( ) ( ) (
t t y
t u t t
T
x c
b Ax x


c
where:
)] ( ), ( ), ( [
] 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 1 [
] 1 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 [
...
1 ... 0 0 0
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
0 ... 1 0 0
0 ... 0 1 0
2 1
1 2 1 0
t x t x t x
a a a a
N
T
T
T
N
"
"
"

x
c
b
A
The initial conditions for the state equations of (7.24) follow directly
from the assumptions following Equation (7.22) and the definitions of
Equation (7.23).
Lets now consider the case where m > 0 in Equation (7.22). A specific
example (with m = 1) can be obtained from the automobile suspension
system model developed earlier if the nonlinear shock absorber is replaced
with a linear device. In other words, if we replace the earlier specification
for f
b
(t) with simply:
f
b
(t) = v(t), where v(t) = y(t) u(t) ,
then Equation (7.2) can be written as

We use the superscript T to denote the transpose of a vector or matrix.
3
3
7.4 State Space Representation 269
) ( ) (
) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (
) ( ) (
) ( ) (
1
0 1 2 1 1 0
3 2
2 1
t x t y with
t u b t x a t x a t x a t x
t x t x
t x t x
N N N

"
#
(7.24(a))
(7.24(b))
The more conventional compact form for Equation (7.24) is:
) ( ) (
) ( ) ( ) (
t t y
t u t t
T
x c
b Ax x


c
where:
)] ( ), ( ), ( [
] 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 1 [
] 1 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 [
...
1 ... 0 0 0
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
0 ... 1 0 0
0 ... 0 1 0
2 1
1 2 1 0
t x t x t x
a a a a
N
T
T
T
N
"
"
"

x
c
b
A
The initial conditions for the state equations of (7.24) follow directly
from the assumptions following Equation (7.22) and the definitions of
Equation (7.23).
Lets now consider the case where m > 0 in Equation (7.22). A specific
example (with m = 1) can be obtained from the automobile suspension
system model developed earlier if the nonlinear shock absorber is replaced
with a linear device. In other words, if we replace the earlier specification
for f
b
(t) with simply:
f
b
(t) = v(t), where v(t) = y(t) u(t) ,
then Equation (7.2) can be written as

We use the superscript T to denote the transpose of a vector or matrix.
3
3
14
Transformao

E no caso em que no h uma nica EDO de


ordem N, mas um conjunto?
15
Transformao

E no caso em que no h uma nica EDO de


ordem N, mas um conjunto?

Procedimento anlogo

Cada varivel denida como um estado bsico

Suas sucessivas derivadas temporais tambm sero


estados
16
Exerccio

Converta o modelo do pndulo invertido para uma


forma em EE
(M +m) x +ml

= u
ml
2

+ml x = mgl
17
Exerccio

Rescrever o conjunto de EDOs para a forma:


M x = u mg
Ml

= (M +m)g u
18
Exerccio

Denir os estados
x
1
=
x
2
=

x
3
= x
x
4
= x
19
Exerccio

Substituindo resulta em
x
1
= x
2
x
2
=
M +m
Ml
gx
1

1
Ml
u
x
3
= x
4
x
4
=
m
M
gx
1
+
1
M
u
20
Transformao

Considere agora o caso em que derivadas do sinal


de entrada u surgem na EDO
270 7. Modelling of Continuous-Time Dynamic Systems
y(t) + a
1
y(t) + a
0
y(t) = b
1
u(t) + b
0
u(t) , (7.25)
where a
1
= b
1
= /M, a
0
= b
0
= k/M.
x
1
(t) = y(t) and x
2
(t) = y(t). The state space representation then becomes:
x
1
(t) = x
2
(t)
x
2
(t) = a
1
x
2
(t) a
0
x
1
(t) + b
1
u(t) + b
0
u(t)
with y(t) = x
1
(t) .
(7.26a)
(7.26b)
(7.26c)
The perplexing outcome here is the explicit reference to the derivative
of the input function that appears on the right-hand side of Equation
(7.26b). It is not unreasonable to imagine cases of interest where u(t) is not
differentiable at all values of t in the observation interval. Recall that for
the example that is under consideration, u(t) corresponds to the road
surface over which the automobile is travelling. A discontinuity in the road
surface could correspond to a hole in the road as shown in Figure 7.11.
Because of this discontinuity in u(t), the derivative of u(t) does not exist at
t = t
b
. Does this mean that Equation (7.25) cannot be solved? Fortunately
the answer is No. The dilemma that we have encountered arises because
of a poor choice of state variables.
FIGURE 7.11. Discontinuous road surface.
As an alternative candidate for the state space representation, consider:
x
1
(t) = x
2
(t)
x
2
(t) = a
0
x
1
(t) a
1
x
2
(t) + u(t)
with y(t) = b
0
x
1
(t) + b
1
x
2
(t) .
(7.27a)
(7.27b)
(7.27c)
This representation certainly has the desired feature of being
independent of any derivatives of the input function, u(t). But is it a valid
representation? To confirm that it is, it must be possible to reconstruct the
original continuous system model of Equation (7.25) from Equation (7.27)
and this can, in fact, be achieved. The process involves straightforward
mathematical manipulation that includes successively differentiating
Equation (7.27c) and substitutions from Equations (7.27a) and (7.27b) to
eliminate derivatives of the state variables x
1
(t) and x
2
(t).
Suppose the procedure we outlined earlier is applied; that is, we let
t = to
Road contour u (t)
t
t
b


21
Transformao

Suponha que o procedimento anterior seja


aplicado normalmente
270 7. Modelling of Continuous-Time Dynamic Systems
y(t) + a
1
y(t) + a
0
y(t) = b
1
u(t) + b
0
u(t) , (7.25)
where a
1
= b
1
= /M, a
0
= b
0
= k/M.
x
1
(t) = y(t) and x
2
(t) = y(t). The state space representation then becomes:
x
1
(t) = x
2
(t)
x
2
(t) = a
1
x
2
(t) a
0
x
1
(t) + b
1
u(t) + b
0
u(t)
with y(t) = x
1
(t) .
(7.26a)
(7.26b)
(7.26c)
The perplexing outcome here is the explicit reference to the derivative
of the input function that appears on the right-hand side of Equation
(7.26b). It is not unreasonable to imagine cases of interest where u(t) is not
differentiable at all values of t in the observation interval. Recall that for
the example that is under consideration, u(t) corresponds to the road
surface over which the automobile is travelling. A discontinuity in the road
surface could correspond to a hole in the road as shown in Figure 7.11.
Because of this discontinuity in u(t), the derivative of u(t) does not exist at
t = t
b
. Does this mean that Equation (7.25) cannot be solved? Fortunately
the answer is No. The dilemma that we have encountered arises because
of a poor choice of state variables.
FIGURE 7.11. Discontinuous road surface.
As an alternative candidate for the state space representation, consider:
x
1
(t) = x
2
(t)
x
2
(t) = a
0
x
1
(t) a
1
x
2
(t) + u(t)
with y(t) = b
0
x
1
(t) + b
1
x
2
(t) .
(7.27a)
(7.27b)
(7.27c)
This representation certainly has the desired feature of being
independent of any derivatives of the input function, u(t). But is it a valid
representation? To confirm that it is, it must be possible to reconstruct the
original continuous system model of Equation (7.25) from Equation (7.27)
and this can, in fact, be achieved. The process involves straightforward
mathematical manipulation that includes successively differentiating
Equation (7.27c) and substitutions from Equations (7.27a) and (7.27b) to
eliminate derivatives of the state variables x
1
(t) and x
2
(t).
Suppose the procedure we outlined earlier is applied; that is, we let
t = to
Road contour u (t)
t
t
b


270 7. Modelling of Continuous-Time Dynamic Systems
y(t) + a
1
y(t) + a
0
y(t) = b
1
u(t) + b
0
u(t) , (7.25)
where a
1
= b
1
= /M, a
0
= b
0
= k/M.
x
1
(t) = y(t) and x
2
(t) = y(t). The state space representation then becomes:
x
1
(t) = x
2
(t)
x
2
(t) = a
1
x
2
(t) a
0
x
1
(t) + b
1
u(t) + b
0
u(t)
with y(t) = x
1
(t) .
(7.26a)
(7.26b)
(7.26c)
The perplexing outcome here is the explicit reference to the derivative
of the input function that appears on the right-hand side of Equation
(7.26b). It is not unreasonable to imagine cases of interest where u(t) is not
differentiable at all values of t in the observation interval. Recall that for
the example that is under consideration, u(t) corresponds to the road
surface over which the automobile is travelling. A discontinuity in the road
surface could correspond to a hole in the road as shown in Figure 7.11.
Because of this discontinuity in u(t), the derivative of u(t) does not exist at
t = t
b
. Does this mean that Equation (7.25) cannot be solved? Fortunately
the answer is No. The dilemma that we have encountered arises because
of a poor choice of state variables.
FIGURE 7.11. Discontinuous road surface.
As an alternative candidate for the state space representation, consider:
x
1
(t) = x
2
(t)
x
2
(t) = a
0
x
1
(t) a
1
x
2
(t) + u(t)
with y(t) = b
0
x
1
(t) + b
1
x
2
(t) .
(7.27a)
(7.27b)
(7.27c)
This representation certainly has the desired feature of being
independent of any derivatives of the input function, u(t). But is it a valid
representation? To confirm that it is, it must be possible to reconstruct the
original continuous system model of Equation (7.25) from Equation (7.27)
and this can, in fact, be achieved. The process involves straightforward
mathematical manipulation that includes successively differentiating
Equation (7.27c) and substitutions from Equations (7.27a) and (7.27b) to
eliminate derivatives of the state variables x
1
(t) and x
2
(t).
Suppose the procedure we outlined earlier is applied; that is, we let
t = to
Road contour u (t)
t
t
b


22
Transformao

Resultado
270 7. Modelling of Continuous-Time Dynamic Systems
y(t) + a
1
y(t) + a
0
y(t) = b
1
u(t) + b
0
u(t) , (7.25)
where a
1
= b
1
= /M, a
0
= b
0
= k/M.
x
1
(t) = y(t) and x
2
(t) = y(t). The state space representation then becomes:
x
1
(t) = x
2
(t)
x
2
(t) = a
1
x
2
(t) a
0
x
1
(t) + b
1
u(t) + b
0
u(t)
with y(t) = x
1
(t) .
(7.26a)
(7.26b)
(7.26c)
The perplexing outcome here is the explicit reference to the derivative
of the input function that appears on the right-hand side of Equation
(7.26b). It is not unreasonable to imagine cases of interest where u(t) is not
differentiable at all values of t in the observation interval. Recall that for
the example that is under consideration, u(t) corresponds to the road
surface over which the automobile is travelling. A discontinuity in the road
surface could correspond to a hole in the road as shown in Figure 7.11.
Because of this discontinuity in u(t), the derivative of u(t) does not exist at
t = t
b
. Does this mean that Equation (7.25) cannot be solved? Fortunately
the answer is No. The dilemma that we have encountered arises because
of a poor choice of state variables.
FIGURE 7.11. Discontinuous road surface.
As an alternative candidate for the state space representation, consider:
x
1
(t) = x
2
(t)
x
2
(t) = a
0
x
1
(t) a
1
x
2
(t) + u(t)
with y(t) = b
0
x
1
(t) + b
1
x
2
(t) .
(7.27a)
(7.27b)
(7.27c)
This representation certainly has the desired feature of being
independent of any derivatives of the input function, u(t). But is it a valid
representation? To confirm that it is, it must be possible to reconstruct the
original continuous system model of Equation (7.25) from Equation (7.27)
and this can, in fact, be achieved. The process involves straightforward
mathematical manipulation that includes successively differentiating
Equation (7.27c) and substitutions from Equations (7.27a) and (7.27b) to
eliminate derivatives of the state variables x
1
(t) and x
2
(t).
Suppose the procedure we outlined earlier is applied; that is, we let
t = to
Road contour u (t)
t
t
b


23
Transformao

Suponha uma entrada


270 7. Modelling of Continuous-Time Dynamic Systems
y(t) + a
1
y(t) + a
0
y(t) = b
1
u(t) + b
0
u(t) , (7.25)
where a
1
= b
1
= /M, a
0
= b
0
= k/M.
x
1
(t) = y(t) and x
2
(t) = y(t). The state space representation then becomes:
x
1
(t) = x
2
(t)
x
2
(t) = a
1
x
2
(t) a
0
x
1
(t) + b
1
u(t) + b
0
u(t)
with y(t) = x
1
(t) .
(7.26a)
(7.26b)
(7.26c)
The perplexing outcome here is the explicit reference to the derivative
of the input function that appears on the right-hand side of Equation
(7.26b). It is not unreasonable to imagine cases of interest where u(t) is not
differentiable at all values of t in the observation interval. Recall that for
the example that is under consideration, u(t) corresponds to the road
surface over which the automobile is travelling. A discontinuity in the road
surface could correspond to a hole in the road as shown in Figure 7.11.
Because of this discontinuity in u(t), the derivative of u(t) does not exist at
t = t
b
. Does this mean that Equation (7.25) cannot be solved? Fortunately
the answer is No. The dilemma that we have encountered arises because
of a poor choice of state variables.
FIGURE 7.11. Discontinuous road surface.
As an alternative candidate for the state space representation, consider:
x
1
(t) = x
2
(t)
x
2
(t) = a
0
x
1
(t) a
1
x
2
(t) + u(t)
with y(t) = b
0
x
1
(t) + b
1
x
2
(t) .
(7.27a)
(7.27b)
(7.27c)
This representation certainly has the desired feature of being
independent of any derivatives of the input function, u(t). But is it a valid
representation? To confirm that it is, it must be possible to reconstruct the
original continuous system model of Equation (7.25) from Equation (7.27)
and this can, in fact, be achieved. The process involves straightforward
mathematical manipulation that includes successively differentiating
Equation (7.27c) and substitutions from Equations (7.27a) and (7.27b) to
eliminate derivatives of the state variables x
1
(t) and x
2
(t).
Suppose the procedure we outlined earlier is applied; that is, we let
t = to
Road contour u (t)
t
t
b


Descontinuidade
24
Transformao

Suponha uma entrada


270 7. Modelling of Continuous-Time Dynamic Systems
y(t) + a
1
y(t) + a
0
y(t) = b
1
u(t) + b
0
u(t) , (7.25)
where a
1
= b
1
= /M, a
0
= b
0
= k/M.
x
1
(t) = y(t) and x
2
(t) = y(t). The state space representation then becomes:
x
1
(t) = x
2
(t)
x
2
(t) = a
1
x
2
(t) a
0
x
1
(t) + b
1
u(t) + b
0
u(t)
with y(t) = x
1
(t) .
(7.26a)
(7.26b)
(7.26c)
The perplexing outcome here is the explicit reference to the derivative
of the input function that appears on the right-hand side of Equation
(7.26b). It is not unreasonable to imagine cases of interest where u(t) is not
differentiable at all values of t in the observation interval. Recall that for
the example that is under consideration, u(t) corresponds to the road
surface over which the automobile is travelling. A discontinuity in the road
surface could correspond to a hole in the road as shown in Figure 7.11.
Because of this discontinuity in u(t), the derivative of u(t) does not exist at
t = t
b
. Does this mean that Equation (7.25) cannot be solved? Fortunately
the answer is No. The dilemma that we have encountered arises because
of a poor choice of state variables.
FIGURE 7.11. Discontinuous road surface.
As an alternative candidate for the state space representation, consider:
x
1
(t) = x
2
(t)
x
2
(t) = a
0
x
1
(t) a
1
x
2
(t) + u(t)
with y(t) = b
0
x
1
(t) + b
1
x
2
(t) .
(7.27a)
(7.27b)
(7.27c)
This representation certainly has the desired feature of being
independent of any derivatives of the input function, u(t). But is it a valid
representation? To confirm that it is, it must be possible to reconstruct the
original continuous system model of Equation (7.25) from Equation (7.27)
and this can, in fact, be achieved. The process involves straightforward
mathematical manipulation that includes successively differentiating
Equation (7.27c) and substitutions from Equations (7.27a) and (7.27b) to
eliminate derivatives of the state variables x
1
(t) and x
2
(t).
Suppose the procedure we outlined earlier is applied; that is, we let
t = to
Road contour u (t)
t
t
b


Descontinuidade
H soluo?
25
Transformao

Suponha uma entrada


270 7. Modelling of Continuous-Time Dynamic Systems
y(t) + a
1
y(t) + a
0
y(t) = b
1
u(t) + b
0
u(t) , (7.25)
where a
1
= b
1
= /M, a
0
= b
0
= k/M.
x
1
(t) = y(t) and x
2
(t) = y(t). The state space representation then becomes:
x
1
(t) = x
2
(t)
x
2
(t) = a
1
x
2
(t) a
0
x
1
(t) + b
1
u(t) + b
0
u(t)
with y(t) = x
1
(t) .
(7.26a)
(7.26b)
(7.26c)
The perplexing outcome here is the explicit reference to the derivative
of the input function that appears on the right-hand side of Equation
(7.26b). It is not unreasonable to imagine cases of interest where u(t) is not
differentiable at all values of t in the observation interval. Recall that for
the example that is under consideration, u(t) corresponds to the road
surface over which the automobile is travelling. A discontinuity in the road
surface could correspond to a hole in the road as shown in Figure 7.11.
Because of this discontinuity in u(t), the derivative of u(t) does not exist at
t = t
b
. Does this mean that Equation (7.25) cannot be solved? Fortunately
the answer is No. The dilemma that we have encountered arises because
of a poor choice of state variables.
FIGURE 7.11. Discontinuous road surface.
As an alternative candidate for the state space representation, consider:
x
1
(t) = x
2
(t)
x
2
(t) = a
0
x
1
(t) a
1
x
2
(t) + u(t)
with y(t) = b
0
x
1
(t) + b
1
x
2
(t) .
(7.27a)
(7.27b)
(7.27c)
This representation certainly has the desired feature of being
independent of any derivatives of the input function, u(t). But is it a valid
representation? To confirm that it is, it must be possible to reconstruct the
original continuous system model of Equation (7.25) from Equation (7.27)
and this can, in fact, be achieved. The process involves straightforward
mathematical manipulation that includes successively differentiating
Equation (7.27c) and substitutions from Equations (7.27a) and (7.27b) to
eliminate derivatives of the state variables x
1
(t) and x
2
(t).
Suppose the procedure we outlined earlier is applied; that is, we let
t = to
Road contour u (t)
t
t
b


Descontinuidade
SIM!
Mas para outra escolha de mudana de variveis
26
Outra Transformao
uma escolha vlida?
7.4 State Space Representation 271
There is, however, one further issue that needs to be addressed before
Equation (7.27) can be accepted as a useful state space representation. This
is the matter of initial conditions. Values are provided for y(t
0
) and y(t
0
)
and these have to be transformed into initial conditions for the state
variables x
1
and x
2
so that Equation (7.27a) and Eq. (7.27b) can be solved.
The necessary transformation can be developed using Equation (7.27c)
together with the result obtained by differentiating Equation (7.27c) and
substituting from Equation (7.27b). With t set to t
0
in the resulting
equations, we get:
y(t
0
) = b
0
x
1
(t
0
) + b
1
x
2
(t
0
)
y(t
0
) b
1
u(t
0
) = a
0
b
1
x
1
(t
0
) + (b
0
a
1
b
1
) x
2
(t
0
).
(7.28a)
(7.28b)
Equation (7.28) provides two linear algebraic equations for the two
unknowns x
1
(t
0
) and x
2
(t
0
). A sufficient condition for the existence of a
solution to these equations is that the determinant det of the coefficient
matrix on the right-hand side be nonzero. The value of the determinant is:
det = b
0
2
a
1
b
0
b
1
+ a
0
b
1
2
. (7.29)
For the specific case of the (linearised) automobile suspension system, a
0
,
a
1
, b
0
, and b
1
have values previously specified (see Equation (7.25)). With
these values substituted, det = (k/M)
2
and hence is nonzero. Consequently
we can conclude that Equation (7.27) is a satisfactory state space
representation for Equation (7.25) in that particular context.
det as given in
Equation (7.29) is nonzero which means that there is a possibility that the
state space representation of Equation (7.25) given by Equation (7.27) may
not be acceptable. It can, for example, be easily shown that if a
1
2
= 4a
0
and
a
1
b
1
= 2b
0
then det is identically zero. It is reasonable therefore to wonder
about the existence of another state space representation that circumvents
this possible flaw. Such an alternative does exist and is given by:
x
1
(t) = a
0
x
2
(t) + b
0
u(t)
x
2
(t) = x
1
(t) a
1
x
2
(t) + b
1
u(t)
with y(t) = x
2
(t) .
(7.30a)
(7.30b)
(7.30c)
Using the same procedure outlined earlier, it can be demonstrated that
Equation (7.25) can be reconstructed from Equation (7.30) and hence
Equation (7.30) is a valid representation for Equation (7.25). The equations
for the initial conditions follow from Equation (7.30c) and Equation
(7.30b) (setting t = t
0
):
y(t
0
) = x
2
(t
0
)
y(t
0
) b
1
u(t
0
) = x
1
(t
0
) a
1
x
2
(t
0
) .
In general, however, there is no guarantee that the value of
27
Outra Transformao
7.4 State Space Representation 271
There is, however, one further issue that needs to be addressed before
Equation (7.27) can be accepted as a useful state space representation. This
is the matter of initial conditions. Values are provided for y(t
0
) and y(t
0
)
and these have to be transformed into initial conditions for the state
variables x
1
and x
2
so that Equation (7.27a) and Eq. (7.27b) can be solved.
The necessary transformation can be developed using Equation (7.27c)
together with the result obtained by differentiating Equation (7.27c) and
substituting from Equation (7.27b). With t set to t
0
in the resulting
equations, we get:
y(t
0
) = b
0
x
1
(t
0
) + b
1
x
2
(t
0
)
y(t
0
) b
1
u(t
0
) = a
0
b
1
x
1
(t
0
) + (b
0
a
1
b
1
) x
2
(t
0
).
(7.28a)
(7.28b)
Equation (7.28) provides two linear algebraic equations for the two
unknowns x
1
(t
0
) and x
2
(t
0
). A sufficient condition for the existence of a
solution to these equations is that the determinant det of the coefficient
matrix on the right-hand side be nonzero. The value of the determinant is:
det = b
0
2
a
1
b
0
b
1
+ a
0
b
1
2
. (7.29)
For the specific case of the (linearised) automobile suspension system, a
0
,
a
1
, b
0
, and b
1
have values previously specified (see Equation (7.25)). With
these values substituted, det = (k/M)
2
and hence is nonzero. Consequently
we can conclude that Equation (7.27) is a satisfactory state space
representation for Equation (7.25) in that particular context.
det as given in
Equation (7.29) is nonzero which means that there is a possibility that the
state space representation of Equation (7.25) given by Equation (7.27) may
not be acceptable. It can, for example, be easily shown that if a
1
2
= 4a
0
and
a
1
b
1
= 2b
0
then det is identically zero. It is reasonable therefore to wonder
about the existence of another state space representation that circumvents
this possible flaw. Such an alternative does exist and is given by:
x
1
(t) = a
0
x
2
(t) + b
0
u(t)
x
2
(t) = x
1
(t) a
1
x
2
(t) + b
1
u(t)
with y(t) = x
2
(t) .
(7.30a)
(7.30b)
(7.30c)
Using the same procedure outlined earlier, it can be demonstrated that
Equation (7.25) can be reconstructed from Equation (7.30) and hence
Equation (7.30) is a valid representation for Equation (7.25). The equations
for the initial conditions follow from Equation (7.30c) and Equation
(7.30b) (setting t = t
0
):
y(t
0
) = x
2
(t
0
)
y(t
0
) b
1
u(t
0
) = x
1
(t
0
) a
1
x
2
(t
0
) .
In general, however, there is no guarantee that the value of
Basta obter a EDO original
fazendo a troca
28
Simulao

Uma tarefa intimamente associada a modelagem

Estudar diversos cenrios

Previso

Determinar comportamento
29
Problema

Estudar o comportamento de forma numrica


Chapter 8 Simulation with CTDS Models
8.1 Overview of the Numerical Solution Process
8.1.1 The Initial Value Problem
An implicit requirement associated with modelling and simulation projects
within the realm of CTDS models is a means for solving the
differential equations embedded in the conceptual model. In very special
cases these equations can fall into a category for which closed-form
analytic solutions can be developed and this certainly has many
advantages. Far more common, however, is the case where the features of
the equations preclude such a solution approach. In such situations,
numerical approximation procedures provide the only solution alternative.
Our concern in this section is with exploring some of these numerical
procedures. More specifically, our interest focuses on the means for
solving the generic Equation (7.21a) of Chapter 7. (The companion equation
(7.21b) is not relevant here because it simply represents a functional
relationship defined on the state vector, x(t)).
Our concern, therefore, is with numerical procedures for generating the
solution of the equation
x(t) = f(x(t),t) (8.1)
over the observation interval I
O
= [t
0,
t
f
] where t
0
, t
f
, and x(t
0
) = x
0
are
assumed to be explicitly given. (Note that the explicit dependence of the
derivative function f on u(t) that appears in Equation (7.21a) has been
suppressed in this representation; the role of u(t) has been merged into the
explicit dependence on t.) In general, x and f in Equation (8.1) are vectors
of dimension N.
The problem stated above is commonly called the initial value problem
(IVP). It is distinct from a closely related problem called the boundary
value problem (BVP). In both problems at least N pieces of data about the
solution are known. In the case of the IVP these are the N components of
the N-vector x
0
. The situation in the case of the BVP is different because
the known values do not occur at the same value of t. The available data
could, for example, be:
Chapter 8 Simulation with CTDS Models
8.1 Overview of the Numerical Solution Process
8.1.1 The Initial Value Problem
An implicit requirement associated with modelling and simulation projects
within the realm of CTDS models is a means for solving the
differential equations embedded in the conceptual model. In very special
cases these equations can fall into a category for which closed-form
analytic solutions can be developed and this certainly has many
advantages. Far more common, however, is the case where the features of
the equations preclude such a solution approach. In such situations,
numerical approximation procedures provide the only solution alternative.
Our concern in this section is with exploring some of these numerical
procedures. More specifically, our interest focuses on the means for
solving the generic Equation (7.21a) of Chapter 7. (The companion equation
(7.21b) is not relevant here because it simply represents a functional
relationship defined on the state vector, x(t)).
Our concern, therefore, is with numerical procedures for generating the
solution of the equation
x(t) = f(x(t),t) (8.1)
over the observation interval I
O
= [t
0,
t
f
] where t
0
, t
f
, and x(t
0
) = x
0
are
assumed to be explicitly given. (Note that the explicit dependence of the
derivative function f on u(t) that appears in Equation (7.21a) has been
suppressed in this representation; the role of u(t) has been merged into the
explicit dependence on t.) In general, x and f in Equation (8.1) are vectors
of dimension N.
The problem stated above is commonly called the initial value problem
(IVP). It is distinct from a closely related problem called the boundary
value problem (BVP). In both problems at least N pieces of data about the
solution are known. In the case of the IVP these are the N components of
the N-vector x
0
. The situation in the case of the BVP is different because
the known values do not occur at the same value of t. The available data
could, for example, be:
Chapter 8 Simulation with CTDS Models
8.1 Overview of the Numerical Solution Process
8.1.1 The Initial Value Problem
An implicit requirement associated with modelling and simulation projects
within the realm of CTDS models is a means for solving the
differential equations embedded in the conceptual model. In very special
cases these equations can fall into a category for which closed-form
analytic solutions can be developed and this certainly has many
advantages. Far more common, however, is the case where the features of
the equations preclude such a solution approach. In such situations,
numerical approximation procedures provide the only solution alternative.
Our concern in this section is with exploring some of these numerical
procedures. More specifically, our interest focuses on the means for
solving the generic Equation (7.21a) of Chapter 7. (The companion equation
(7.21b) is not relevant here because it simply represents a functional
relationship defined on the state vector, x(t)).
Our concern, therefore, is with numerical procedures for generating the
solution of the equation
x(t) = f(x(t),t) (8.1)
over the observation interval I
O
= [t
0,
t
f
] where t
0
, t
f
, and x(t
0
) = x
0
are
assumed to be explicitly given. (Note that the explicit dependence of the
derivative function f on u(t) that appears in Equation (7.21a) has been
suppressed in this representation; the role of u(t) has been merged into the
explicit dependence on t.) In general, x and f in Equation (8.1) are vectors
of dimension N.
The problem stated above is commonly called the initial value problem
(IVP). It is distinct from a closely related problem called the boundary
value problem (BVP). In both problems at least N pieces of data about the
solution are known. In the case of the IVP these are the N components of
the N-vector x
0
. The situation in the case of the BVP is different because
the known values do not occur at the same value of t. The available data
could, for example, be:
30
Problema Valor Inicial
Chapter 8 Simulation with CTDS Models
8.1 Overview of the Numerical Solution Process
8.1.1 The Initial Value Problem
An implicit requirement associated with modelling and simulation projects
within the realm of CTDS models is a means for solving the
differential equations embedded in the conceptual model. In very special
cases these equations can fall into a category for which closed-form
analytic solutions can be developed and this certainly has many
advantages. Far more common, however, is the case where the features of
the equations preclude such a solution approach. In such situations,
numerical approximation procedures provide the only solution alternative.
Our concern in this section is with exploring some of these numerical
procedures. More specifically, our interest focuses on the means for
solving the generic Equation (7.21a) of Chapter 7. (The companion equation
(7.21b) is not relevant here because it simply represents a functional
relationship defined on the state vector, x(t)).
Our concern, therefore, is with numerical procedures for generating the
solution of the equation
x(t) = f(x(t),t) (8.1)
over the observation interval I
O
= [t
0,
t
f
] where t
0
, t
f
, and x(t
0
) = x
0
are
assumed to be explicitly given. (Note that the explicit dependence of the
derivative function f on u(t) that appears in Equation (7.21a) has been
suppressed in this representation; the role of u(t) has been merged into the
explicit dependence on t.) In general, x and f in Equation (8.1) are vectors
of dimension N.
The problem stated above is commonly called the initial value problem
(IVP). It is distinct from a closely related problem called the boundary
value problem (BVP). In both problems at least N pieces of data about the
solution are known. In the case of the IVP these are the N components of
the N-vector x
0
. The situation in the case of the BVP is different because
the known values do not occur at the same value of t. The available data
could, for example, be:
Chapter 8 Simulation with CTDS Models
8.1 Overview of the Numerical Solution Process
8.1.1 The Initial Value Problem
An implicit requirement associated with modelling and simulation projects
within the realm of CTDS models is a means for solving the
differential equations embedded in the conceptual model. In very special
cases these equations can fall into a category for which closed-form
analytic solutions can be developed and this certainly has many
advantages. Far more common, however, is the case where the features of
the equations preclude such a solution approach. In such situations,
numerical approximation procedures provide the only solution alternative.
Our concern in this section is with exploring some of these numerical
procedures. More specifically, our interest focuses on the means for
solving the generic Equation (7.21a) of Chapter 7. (The companion equation
(7.21b) is not relevant here because it simply represents a functional
relationship defined on the state vector, x(t)).
Our concern, therefore, is with numerical procedures for generating the
solution of the equation
x(t) = f(x(t),t) (8.1)
over the observation interval I
O
= [t
0,
t
f
] where t
0
, t
f
, and x(t
0
) = x
0
are
assumed to be explicitly given. (Note that the explicit dependence of the
derivative function f on u(t) that appears in Equation (7.21a) has been
suppressed in this representation; the role of u(t) has been merged into the
explicit dependence on t.) In general, x and f in Equation (8.1) are vectors
of dimension N.
The problem stated above is commonly called the initial value problem
(IVP). It is distinct from a closely related problem called the boundary
value problem (BVP). In both problems at least N pieces of data about the
solution are known. In the case of the IVP these are the N components of
the N-vector x
0
. The situation in the case of the BVP is different because
the known values do not occur at the same value of t. The available data
could, for example, be:
Chapter 8 Simulation with CTDS Models
8.1 Overview of the Numerical Solution Process
8.1.1 The Initial Value Problem
An implicit requirement associated with modelling and simulation projects
within the realm of CTDS models is a means for solving the
differential equations embedded in the conceptual model. In very special
cases these equations can fall into a category for which closed-form
analytic solutions can be developed and this certainly has many
advantages. Far more common, however, is the case where the features of
the equations preclude such a solution approach. In such situations,
numerical approximation procedures provide the only solution alternative.
Our concern in this section is with exploring some of these numerical
procedures. More specifically, our interest focuses on the means for
solving the generic Equation (7.21a) of Chapter 7. (The companion equation
(7.21b) is not relevant here because it simply represents a functional
relationship defined on the state vector, x(t)).
Our concern, therefore, is with numerical procedures for generating the
solution of the equation
x(t) = f(x(t),t) (8.1)
over the observation interval I
O
= [t
0,
t
f
] where t
0
, t
f
, and x(t
0
) = x
0
are
assumed to be explicitly given. (Note that the explicit dependence of the
derivative function f on u(t) that appears in Equation (7.21a) has been
suppressed in this representation; the role of u(t) has been merged into the
explicit dependence on t.) In general, x and f in Equation (8.1) are vectors
of dimension N.
The problem stated above is commonly called the initial value problem
(IVP). It is distinct from a closely related problem called the boundary
value problem (BVP). In both problems at least N pieces of data about the
solution are known. In the case of the IVP these are the N components of
the N-vector x
0
. The situation in the case of the BVP is different because
the known values do not occur at the same value of t. The available data
could, for example, be:
31
Na Prtica

Estamos interessados em uma soluo numrica


para o PVI
(t
n
, x
n
) : n = 0, 1, 2, , M
x
n
x(t
n
)
t
n+1
= t
n
+h
32
Na Prtica
278 8. Simulation with CTDS Models
x
x
x
x
x
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x
x
x
x
n
h
n
True solution
through (t
0
, x
0
)
X(t)
x
0
t
0
t
n
t
n+1
t
t
f
X(t
n
)
FIGURE 8.1. Numerical solution to an IVP.
An important feature of Figure 8.1 is the implication that the numerical
solution rarely coincides with the true solution. In fact, it is only at the
starting point t = t
0
where there is certainty that the numerical value is
identical to the true value. All other numerical values are, in general,
different from the true value. This difference, that is, the error, has two
basic origins:
a) Truncation (or discretisation) error.
This is a property of the solution method.
b) Round-off error.
This is a property of the computer program used to implement the
solution method.

It arises because of the finite precision in number
representation.
Although not apparent from Figure 8.1, it is important to appreciate that
with all numerical solution methods, each new solution estimate is
generated using information from previously generated solution values; in
other words it is constructed from data that may already have significant
error. This somewhat disturbing fact sets the stage for the propagation of
error that, in turn, can lead to instability. In other words, there is the
possibility that the size of the error will grow, in an unbounded manner, as
new solution values are generated.
Stability is one of several important attributes that can be associated
with any solution method. Others are:
Soluo real
33
Mtodos

Famlia Runge-Kutta

Euller, Trapezoidal, RK 4 Ordem

Passo xo/varivel

Monte Carlo
34
Euller
8.1 Overview of the Numerical Solution Process 279
x Order (this is closely related to the notion of truncation error introduced
earlier).
x Accuracy (this is a reference to the correspondence between the true
solution and the numerical solution).
x Local efficiency (this is a measure of the computational effort required
to move the generated solution forward from t = t
n
to t = t
n+1
; it is
typically measured in terms of the number of evaluation of the
derivative function f).
In the discussion that follows, we explore these various matters that
have vital importance to the simulation phase of a modelling and
simulation study within the CTDS realm.
8.1.4 Comparison of Two Preliminary Methods
The Euler Method
The Euler method is the most fundamental of the wide range of approaches
that are available for the numerical solution of the IVP. The underlying
concept is shown in Figure 8.2.
h
n
True solution through (t
n
, x
n
)
x
n
t
0
t
n
t
n+1
t
x
n+1
Local truncation error
FIGURE 8.2. The Euler method.
The assumption in Figure 8.2 is that the solution process has progressed
to t = t
n
and the solution value generated at t = t
n
is x
n
. We denote by f
n
the
slope of the true solution through the point (t
n
, x
n
); that is,
Erro Truncamento
Soluo Verdadeira
35
Euller
8.1 Overview of the Numerical Solution Process 279
x Order (this is closely related to the notion of truncation error introduced
earlier).
x Accuracy (this is a reference to the correspondence between the true
solution and the numerical solution).
x Local efficiency (this is a measure of the computational effort required
to move the generated solution forward from t = t
n
to t = t
n+1
; it is
typically measured in terms of the number of evaluation of the
derivative function f).
In the discussion that follows, we explore these various matters that
have vital importance to the simulation phase of a modelling and
simulation study within the CTDS realm.
8.1.4 Comparison of Two Preliminary Methods
The Euler Method
The Euler method is the most fundamental of the wide range of approaches
that are available for the numerical solution of the IVP. The underlying
concept is shown in Figure 8.2.
h
n
True solution through (t
n
, x
n
)
x
n
t
0
t
n
t
n+1
t
x
n+1
Local truncation error
FIGURE 8.2. The Euler method.
The assumption in Figure 8.2 is that the solution process has progressed
to t = t
n
and the solution value generated at t = t
n
is x
n
. We denote by f
n
the
slope of the true solution through the point (t
n
, x
n
); that is,
Erro Truncamento
Soluo Verdadeira
280 8. Simulation with CTDS Models
f
n
= f(x
n
, t
n
) .
The solution approximation at t = t
n+1
= t
n
+ h
n
associated with the Euler
method is:
x
n+1
= x
n
+ h
n
f
n
. (8.2)
Although the approach here is intuitively appealing, it can also be viewed as
an approximation arising from the definition of a derivative, namely, from the
definition that:
x

(t) =
dt
dx
=
0
lim
o '
'
' ) ( - ) ( t x t x
.
The update formula of Equation (8.2) is then obtained by ignoring the
requirement for to approach zero and by making the following
associations: t = t
n
, = h
n
, x(t
n
) = x
n
, x(t
n
+ h
n
) = x
n+1
and (t
n
) = f
n
.
The Modified Euler Method (or Trapezoidal Rule)
The Euler method moves forward on the basis of a single derivative
function evaluation. This value (namely, f(x
n
, t
n
)) is the slope of the true
solution that passes through the solution estimate (t
n
,x
n
). But because (t
n
,
x
n
) is not generally on the desired solution (the one through (t
0
, x
0
)) it is
reasonable to conjecture that some other slope value might be a better
choice. The Modified Euler method creates such an alternate choice by first
evaluating the derivative function at the solution estimate produced by the
Euler method and then taking an average of the two slope values that are
thus available. More specifically,
x Take an Euler step to produce the value p
n+1
= (x
n
+ h
n
f
n
) at t = t
n+1
.
x Let F
n+1
= f(p
n+1
, t
n+1
).
x Choose the solution estimate at t = t
n+1
to be:
x
n+1
= x
n
+ h
n
(f
n
+ F
n+1
)/2. (8.3)
One difference between solution estimates from the Euler and the
Modified Euler methods (given by Equations (8.2) and (8.3), respectively)
is that the former requires only one derivative function evaluation whereas
the latter requires two. It is natural, therefore, to expect some advantage
from the added effort. An advantage is certainly present and it is realised in
terms of superior error performance, at least at the level of local behaviour.
This feature can be explored by examining the Taylor series expansion of
the true solution of Equation (8.1) that goes through the point (t
n
, x
n
). As
earlier, we denote this particular solution by X
n
(t). A Taylor series
expansion gives:
X
n
(t
n
+ ) = X
n
(t
n
) + X
n
(t
n
) +
2
X
n
(t
n
) + O(
3
). (8.4)
x

36
Runge-Kutta
282 8. Simulation with CTDS Models
8.2 Some Families of Solution Methods
The most common numerical solution methods for the IVP fall into two
broad classes. We examine each of these in turn beginning with the Runge
Kutta family.
8.2.1 The RungeKutta Family
There are two representations for the RungeKutta family and these are
referred to as explicit and implicit representations. We restrict our
considerations to the explicit representation. The explicit s-stage Runge
Kutta formula is given below:
x
n+1
= x
n
+ h
i
s

1
b
i
g
i
, (8.5)
where:
g
1
= f(x
n
, t
n
)
g
2
= f(x
n
+ h a
21
g
1 n 2
)
g
3
= f(x
n
+ h (a
31
g
1
+ a
32
g
2
), t
n
+ c
3
h)
.
.
g
s
= f(x
n
+ h (a
s1
g
1
+ a
s2
g
2
+ . . . a
s s-1
g
s-1
), t
n
+ c
s
h) .
Remarks
x The s-stage formula requires s evaluations of the derivative function f to
advance one step (of length h) along the t-axis.
x The s-stage formula has S = (s
2
+ 3s 2)/2 free parameters, namely, the
collection of b
i
s, a
ij
s, and c
k
s. Numerical values for these parameters
are determined by a procedure that undertakes to establish an
equivalence between the computed value x
n+1
and the first r terms in a
Taylor series expansion for the true solution X(t) passing through (t
n
,
x
n
). This creates a formula of order r. It is always true that r s. In
essentially all cases, there are many ways to select values for the S
parameters in order to achieve a formula of order r s.
x The general formula given in Equation (8.5) is explicit because the
solution value x
n+1
evolves directly without the need for the resolution
for further numerical issues. Observe also that no past solution
information is needed to generate x
n+1
. As we show in the discussion
that follows, these features are not always provided by other methods.
t + c h ,
, , ,
37
RK 4
8.2 Some Families of Solution Methods 283
It is interesting to observe that both methods introduced earlier in
Section 8.1.4 are members of the RungeKutta family. The first-order
Euler method corresponds to the case where s = 1, and b
1
= 1 and the
second-order Modified Euler method corresponds to the case where s = 2,
b
1
= b
2
= 1/2, a
21
= c
2
= 1. An alternate second-order method, frequently
called the Heun form, is given by s = 2, b
1
= 1/4, b
2
= 3/4, a
21
= c
2
= 2/3.
Third- and fourth-order RungeKutta formulas are often used and a
representative of each of these classes is provided below. The third-order
formula given below is often called the Heun form.
x
n+1
= x
n
+
4
1
h [g
1
+ 3 g
3
]
g
1
= f(x
n
, t
n
)
g
2
= f(x
n
+
3
1
h g
1
, t
n
+
3
1
h)
g
3
= f(x
n
+
3
2
h g
2
, t
n
+
3
2
h) .
The fourth-order formula given below is often called the Kutta (or the
classic) form.
x
n+1
= x
n
+
6
1
h [g
1
+ 2 g
2
+ 2 g
3
+g
4
]
g
1
= f(x
n
, t
n
)
g
2
= f(x
n
+
2
1
h g
1
, t
n
+
2
1
h)
g
3
= f(x
n
+
2
1
h g
2
, t
n
+
2
1
h)
g
4
= f(x
n
+ h g
3
, t
n
+ h) .
8.2.2 The Linear Multistep Family
Specific methods in this family are constructed from the following generic
formula,




k
i
k
i
i n i i n i n
1 0
1 1 1
f h x x ,
(8.6)
where f
j
= f(x
j
,t
j
). Notice that an essential difference from the RungeKutta
family is the reliance on past values of the numerical solution and on the
slope of the solution at those values, that is, on the derivative function f
evaluated at those past values. Several special cases can be identified:

k1: inclinao comeo do intervalo

k2: inclinao no meio do intervalo, usando k1 para previso

k3: inclinao no meio do intervalo, usando k2 para previso

k4: inclinao no m do intervalo, usando k3 para previso


38
Classicao de Sistemas

Linearidade
39
Aditividade

x1 y1

x2 y2

x1+x2 y1+y2
40
Homogeneidade

x y

kx ky
41
Superposio

Um sistema linear satisfaz o princpio da


superposio

x1 y1

x2 y2

k1x1 + k2x2 ky1+ky2


42
Resposta

Sada: depende de 2 parcelas

condio inicial

entrada
43
Exemplo
y(t) = v
c
(t
0
) + Rx(t) +
1
C

t
t
0
x()d, t t
0
resposta entrada nula
Resposta estado nulo
44
Classicao de Sistemas

Invariantes no tempo

Variantes no tempo
45
Invarincia
46
Invarincia
S Atraso T
Atraso T S
x(t)
x(t) x(t-T)
y(t) y(t-T)
y(t-T)
47
Classicao Sistemas

Causal

No-causal
48
Causalidade

Um sistema dito causal se a sada em um instante


t0 depende apenas do valor da entrada para tt0
49
No-causal

Por que estud-los?

Processamento de sinais: ltragem

Limite superior
50
Classicao de Sistemas

Inversvel

No-inversvel

Entradas distintas geram a mesma sada


51
Classicao de Sistemas

Contnuo

Discreto
52