control and simulation Module Spring Mass

[VASCO-1]

Similar question is  also here ...

I have a question about the SIMULINK import and Control & Simulation result ... I have done the importing, but the resulting graph is not the same .... Could you give me a hint, what might be wrong ?!

Here is the description .... source homepage is link and the SImulink code - link.

Best regards,

Vasco

[Eric_LV]

For your question about the model not having the same amplitude in LabVIEW.  Since you have the exact same response just a different amplitude check to make sure your Gain settings are all the same as your other model. 

For your question about the Ride Analysis and Suspension Control article please refer to this line at the bottom of the page.  "Please contact andy.chang@ni.com to request more information about this article."  

For your question about your imported code.  How did you import the code in?  Did you actually run your original model you have the code for?

[Barp]

VASCO

The converter works better if you run it on the same machine you have your toolchain from the The Mathworks, Inc installed. If you just have the .mdl files, then you need to be careful with the numbers and values that you get in LabVIEW. In addition, notice that sometimes, when converting, the signal is a 'vector' instead of 'scalar' . This happens because the converter could not verify the correct size. You can open the loop and wire a 'scalar' to it and, after it does propagate the values, you can wire it back. This could help you to correct convert the model.

Also, double-check the values again. If it is not matching it is most likely the default values. Please let me know if you have further questions.

[Barp]

One more thing: which solver is it using it? It is very possible that you need to 'adjust' the solvers to mimic the results.

[VASCO-1]

Hi Barp,

I  have made the conversion SIMULINK into the LabView with the procedure described on the page - link (comment by the Andy Chang - 06-01-201008:23 PM).

The paramters have to be adjusted

 

The results are quite the same

thank you anywy for the hint ...

Best regards,

Vasco

[VASCO-1]

Hi !

Regarding the Ride Analysis and Suspension Control - the results are quite OK!

What would happen, if we changed excitation -on upper body  ?!

The results are not giving me promising results as it should

The simuation parameters are the same as in upper case.

Do You have any idea ?!

Best regards,

Vasco

[Barp]

VASCO-1

The problem is on the second feedback loop. If you notice Z2 and Z2_dot on (http://www.ni.com/white-paper/13019/en) have a negative feedback against the disturbance or road profile. Since in your case it is zero, it is fine to wire directly as you had, however, you have to negate the feedback otherwise you will have an unstable system. See the picture below to know what to do. This should fix the issue.

[VASCO-1]

Hi Barp!

thanks again ... the solution is OK ... here are some results with the modified LV code ... 

OK ... I have another chllenge, which is present in the Simulation loop ... "conditional switch" .... could you please propose me some alternative in SIMULINK ....

Could it be done maybe with the Mathscript code ?!

The LV code is also present on 4th page on this Forum ...

Best regards,

Vasco

[ME_guy]

How can I get a copy of the original Ride Analysis and Suspension Control vi dicussed in the tutorial?  I am looking for the base excitation.  Not excitation on the mass.

[MaggieAggie]

Hello ME_guy, 

Which tutorial are you referrring to? For more information on the Ride Analysis and Suspension Control.vi, I would contact VASCO-1.