Add matlab file names

matlab/test_id31_2_open_loop_plant.m

@@ -40,15 +40,15 @@ specs_ry_rms = 0.25; % [urad RMS]
 % Open-Loop Plant Identification
 % <<ssec:test_id31_open_loop_plant_first_id>>
 
-% The plant dynamics is first identified for a fixed spindle angle (at $0\,\text{deg}$) and without any payload.
-% The model dynamics is also identified in the same conditions.
+% The dynamics of the plant is first identified for a fixed spindle angle (at $0\,\text{deg}$) and without any payload.
+% The model dynamics is also identified under the same conditions.
 
-% A first comparison between the model and the measured dynamics is done in Figure ref:fig:test_id31_first_id.
+% A comparison between the model and the measured dynamics is presented in Figure ref:fig:test_id31_first_id.
 % A good match can be observed for the diagonal dynamics (except the high frequency modes which are not modeled).
-% However, the coupling for the transfer function from command signals $\bm{u}$ to the estimated strut motion from the external metrology $\bm{\epsilon\mathcal{L}}$ is larger than expected (Figure ref:fig:test_id31_first_id_int).
+% However, the coupling of the transfer function from command signals $\bm{u}$ to the estimated strut motion from the external metrology $\bm{\epsilon\mathcal{L}}$ is larger than expected (Figure ref:fig:test_id31_first_id_int).
 
 % The experimental time delay estimated from the FRF (Figure ref:fig:test_id31_first_id_int) is larger than expected.
-% After investigation, it was found that the additional delay was due to a digital processing unit[fn:3] that was used to get the interferometers' signals in the Speedgoat.
+% After investigation, it was found that the additional delay was due to a digital processing unit[fn:test_id31_3] that was used to get the interferometers' signals in the Speedgoat.
 % This issue was later solved.
 
 
@@ -220,8 +220,8 @@ xlim([1, 1e3]);
 % One possible explanation of the increased coupling observed in Figure ref:fig:test_id31_first_id_int is the poor alignment between the external metrology axes (i.e. the interferometer supports) and the nano-hexapod axes.
 % To estimate this alignment, a decentralized low-bandwidth feedback controller based on the nano-hexapod encoders was implemented.
 % This allowed to perform two straight movements of the nano-hexapod along its $x$ and $y$ axes.
-% During these two movements, the external metrology measurement was recorded and are shown in Figure ref:fig:test_id31_Rz_align_error.
-% It was found that there is a misalignment of 2.7 degrees (rotation along the vertical axis) between the interferometer axes and nano-hexapod axes.
+% During these two movements, external metrology measurements were recorded and the results are shown in Figure ref:fig:test_id31_Rz_align_error_and_correct.
+% It was found that there was a misalignment of 2.7 degrees (rotation along the vertical axis) between the interferometer axes and nano-hexapod axes.
 % This was corrected by adding an offset to the spindle angle.
 % After alignment, the same movement was performed using the nano-hexapod while recording the signal of the external metrology.
 % Results shown in Figure ref:fig:test_id31_Rz_align_correct are indeed indicating much better alignment.
@@ -279,7 +279,7 @@ leg.ItemTokenSize(1) = 15;
 
 
 
-% #+name: fig:test_id31_Rz_align_error
+% #+name: fig:test_id31_Rz_align_error_and_correct
 % #+caption: Measurement of the Nano-Hexapod axes in the frame of the external metrology. Before alignment (\subref{fig:test_id31_Rz_align_error}) and after alignment (\subref{fig:test_id31_Rz_align_correct}).
 % #+attr_latex: :options [htbp]
 % #+begin_figure
@@ -297,11 +297,11 @@ leg.ItemTokenSize(1) = 15;
 % #+end_subfigure
 % #+end_figure
 
-% The plant dynamics was identified again after the fine alignment and is compared with the model dynamics in Figure ref:fig:test_id31_first_id_int_better_rz_align.
-% Compared to the initial identification shown in Figure ref:fig:test_id31_first_id_int, the obtained coupling has decreased and is now close to the coupling obtained with the multi-body model.
-% At low frequency (below $10\,\text{Hz}$) all the off-diagonal elements have an amplitude $\approx 100$ times lower compared to the diagonal elements, indicating that a low bandwidth feedback controller can be implemented in a decentralized way (i.e. $6$ SISO controllers).
-% Between $650\,\text{Hz}$ and $1000\,\text{Hz}$, several modes can be observed that are due to flexible modes of the top platform and modes of the two spheres adjustment mechanism.
-% The flexible modes of the top platform can be passively damped while the modes of the two reference spheres should not be present in the final application.
+% The dynamics of the plant was identified again after fine alignment and compared with the model dynamics in Figure ref:fig:test_id31_first_id_int_better_rz_align.
+% Compared to the initial identification shown in Figure ref:fig:test_id31_first_id_int, the obtained coupling was decreased and was close to the coupling obtained with the multi-body model.
+% At low frequency (below $10\,\text{Hz}$), all off-diagonal elements have an amplitude $\approx 100$ times lower than the diagonal elements, indicating that a low bandwidth feedback controller can be implemented in a decentralized manner (i.e. $6$ SISO controllers).
+% Between $650\,\text{Hz}$ and $1000\,\text{Hz}$, several modes can be observed, which are due to flexible modes of the top platform and the modes of the two spheres adjustment mechanism.
+% The flexible modes of the top platform can be passively damped, whereas the modes of the two reference spheres should not be present in the final application.
 
 
 %% Identification of the plant after Rz alignment
@@ -352,12 +352,12 @@ leg.ItemTokenSize(1) = 15;
 % Effect of Payload Mass
 % <<ssec:test_id31_open_loop_plant_mass>>
 
-% In order to see how the system dynamics changes with the payload, open-loop identification was performed for four payload conditions that are shown in Figure ref:fig:test_id31_picture_masses.
-% The obtained direct terms are compared with the model dynamics in Figure ref:fig:test_nhexa_comp_simscape_diag_masses.
-% It is shown that the model dynamics well predicts the measured dynamics for all payload conditions.
-% Therefore the model can be used for model-based control is necessary.
+% To determine how the system dynamics changes with the payload, open-loop identification was performed for four payload conditions shown in Figure ref:fig:test_id31_picture_masses.
+% The obtained direct terms are compared with the model dynamics in Figure ref:fig:test_id31_comp_simscape_diag_masses.
+% It was found that the model well predicts the measured dynamics under all payload conditions.
+% Therefore, the model can be used for model-based control is necessary.
 
-% It is interesting to note that the anti-resonances in the force sensor plant are now appearing as minimum-phase, as the model predicts (Figure ref:fig:test_id31_comp_simscape_iff_diag_masses).
+% It is interesting to note that the anti-resonances in the force sensor plant now appear as minimum-phase, as the model predicts (Figure ref:fig:test_id31_comp_simscape_iff_diag_masses).
 
 % #+name: fig:test_id31_picture_masses
 % #+caption: The four tested payload conditions. (\subref{fig:test_id31_picture_mass_m0}) without payload. (\subref{fig:test_id31_picture_mass_m1}) with $13\,\text{kg}$ payload. (\subref{fig:test_id31_picture_mass_m2}) with $26\,\text{kg}$ payload. (\subref{fig:test_id31_picture_mass_m3}) with $39\,\text{kg}$ payload.
@@ -672,10 +672,10 @@ xticks([10, 20, 50, 100, 200, 500])
 
 % To verify that all the kinematics in Figure ref:fig:test_id31_block_schematic_plant are correct and to check whether the system dynamics is affected by Spindle rotation of not, three identification experiments were performed: no spindle rotation, spindle rotation at $36\,\text{deg}/s$ and at $180\,\text{deg}/s$.
 
-% The comparison of the obtained dynamics from command signal $u$ to estimated strut error $\epsilon\mathcal{L}$ is done in Figure ref:fig:test_id31_effect_rotation.
+% The obtained dynamics from command signal $u$ to estimated strut error $\epsilon\mathcal{L}$ are displayed in Figure ref:fig:test_id31_effect_rotation.
 % Both direct terms (Figure ref:fig:test_id31_effect_rotation_direct) and coupling terms (Figure ref:fig:test_id31_effect_rotation_coupling) are unaffected by the rotation.
-% The same can be observed for the dynamics from the command signal to the encoders and to the force sensors.
-% This confirms that the rotation has no significant effect on the plant dynamics.
+% The same can be observed for the dynamics from command signal to encoders and to force sensors.
+% This confirms that spindle's rotation has no significant effect on plant dynamics.
 % This also indicates that the metrology kinematics is correct and is working in real time.