Add Iwing and khinge parameters to param opt

[avikde]

Should be able to compare results to [Chen (2016)]

[avikde]

Identification works with mwing

[avikde]

Optimization just wants higher mwing (hitting constraint). Need to debug why

1.12208 18.7027 2.0

[avikde]

actually the test H.pb = Bu fails. The second row is not zero.

On master:

 1.11022e-16  1.66533e-16  1.11022e-16  -1.11022e-16  …  5.55112e-17  3.88578e-16  8.06646e-17  -2.498e-16
 2.22045e-16  1.66533e-16  1.66533e-16  -7.77156e-16     0.0          4.44089e-16  5.55112e-16  -2.22045e-16

This branch:

 2.22045e-16  1.11022e-16  1.11022e-16  1.11022e-16  …   1.94289e-16   4.02456e-16  -8.58688e-17  -1.11022e-16
 0.049568     0.04901      0.0447856    0.0354245       -0.0396049    -0.0488398    -0.0564632    -0.062952

Update: fixed by c20711d

[avikde]

Mode 2 (ID)

Mode 1 (opt)

Plot of actuator objective wrt mwing (keeping the other two fixed)

[avikde]

From Chen(2016) Table 1 data: looks like Ixx, Izz (the two wing inertia params) both scale linearly with spar width (mm)

Based on this, maybe it makes sense to produce mspar and mwing both from spar width as the parameter. spar width, cbar, R -> can they together effectively predict Ixx, Izz.

Comparison of physical parameters in Chen (2016)

	cbar	R (wing length)	T	mwing/dspar	NOTES
Ixx	x	x		X
Izz	x	x		X
AR		X
r1 (spanwise first moment)					n/a planar
LESR					n/a planar
size	X	X

Additionally, T/R can be replaced by a single parameter. SHOW

Conclusion: we only need two params:

• mwing/dspar - note that Ixx ~= asd

Plots for comparison

Chen (2016)

• Fig 6 - increased mwing. but they also change the traj (freq)
• Fig 9 - AR increase means increase in R - since R only appears as T*R, increased R means increased T.

Chen JFM (2016)

• could say that we can pick what phase shift we want, and modify design to get it, instead of trying different frequencies

[avikde]

Modified R, initial T. The traj0 looks like this now