14th international conference on Sciences and Techniques STA'2013-PID3-$&6

of Automatic control & computer engineering - STA'2013

Sousse, Tunisia, December 20-22, 2013

Robust and ultrafast design of a control system based on optimal

sensitivity and optimal complementary sensitivity

David Bensoussan, Yulan Sun, Maher Hammami

Abstract A new patented control algorithm achieves an A comparative study will be done between various control
optimized performance of the time response while preserving all the methods applied to hard disk drive.
advantages that high gain feedback offers in terms of stability
margins and robustness without having to worry about a risk of II. HARD DISK MODEL
oscillations or instability. The algorithm is applied to stable An elaborated model of a disk drive can be found in Chen
invertible systems and is based on the quasi-linear principle i.e. the
poles of the controller depend on the gain. It is applied to control a
[5], namely:
hard disk drive and simulation results show its superior 6.4013 107 4
performance. The design of optimal sensitivity is fine-tuned by the P (s) =
s2
Pr ,i ( s) with (1)
plot of the inverse of the plant on Nichols chart while the design of i =1
optimal complementary sensitivity is fine-tuned on the Nichols
chart. This paper shows that the addition of phase networks in the 0.912s 2 + 457.4s + 1.433 108 (2)
Pr ,1 ( s) =
intermediate frequency range further improves the time response of s 2 + 359.2s + 1.433 108
the system as predicted in [1].
0.7586 s 2 + 962.2 s + 2.491 108
Pr ,2 ( s) = (3)
Keywords Robust control; time performance; quasi-linear s 2 + 789.1s + 2.491 108
control; hard disk drive
I. INTRODUCTION 9.917 108 (4)
Pr ,3 ( s ) =
s 2 + 1575s + 9.917 108
In classical control, obtaining a faster time response, i.e. a
shorter rise time and a shorter settling time involves the risk of 2.731 109 (5)
oscillations and instability. These are not present in a new Pr ,4 ( s ) =
s + 2613s + 2.731 109 2

control algorithm based on quasi-linear control. Kelemen[2] has The unity feedback system is described in figure 1:
shown that unlimited gain margins and phase margins close to 90
degrees can be achieved while at the same time confining the
time response in a very narrow tube. His work on second order d(s) E(s) U(s) Y(s)

C(s) P(s)
systems has been extended to unstable systems of any order by +
-
Kelemen and Bensoussan [3], denoted KB method. In this
method denoted KB method, the poles of the compensator are Sensor
H(s) = 1
dependent on the loop gain so that the critical point (-1, 0) in the
complex plane is systematically avoided. However, simulation Figure 1. The feedback loop.
results show that such a result is indeed valid as we let the gain
approach infinity and this makes the algorithm less practical. In III. GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF THE NEW ALGORITHM
the new algorithm [4] denoted B method, the design is based on The B method relies on the basic relations that exist
sensitivity considerations. Indeed, a reduced sensitivity translates between sensitivity S(s) = E(s)/d(s) and close loop transmission
into an input-output transmission closer to unity in unity T(s) = Y(s)/d(s) in a unity feedback control system in which P(s)
feedback systems. The proper transition from high gain at low is the process to be controlled and C(s) is the series compensator,
frequency to decreasing gains at high frequency allows to fine namely:
tune the time response while maintaining very high gain margins 1 P ( s ) C ( s ) and S ( s ) + T ( s ) = 1
and phase margins close to unity. S (s) = T (s) =
1+ P (s)C (s) 1+ P (s)C (s)
,
D. Bensoussan is with the cole de technologie suprieure, 1100 Notre-dame We take into consideration the property of the log-sensitivity
street west, Montreal, Canada (e-mail: david.bensoussan@etsmtl). function [6], [7] and [8] , namely:
Y. Sun, Jr., is with the cole de technologie suprieure, 1100 Notre-dame

street west, Montreal, Canada (e-mail: yulan.sun@etsmtl.ca). 1 1
log S ( ) d + k (6)

M. Hammami is with Department of Physics, Faculty of Sciences of Sfax, BP h
= pi ,
802, Sfax 3018, Tunisia 0
2 pi CRHP
(e-mail: hammami_maher@yahoo.fr).

978-1-4799-2953-5/13/$31.00 2013 IEEE

where pi CRHP denote the closed right half plane (CRHP)
open loop poles, that is, the unstable poles of L(s); and kh is the
loop high frequency gain constant defined by:
The design will be done in three stages: At low frequencies
1 , make the sensitivity smaller than any positive number
> 0, using high gain. In the frequency band of transition, use
phase systems (lead-lag and/or all pass filters) to improve the
step response. Over all frequencies, ensure that sensitivity is
smaller than any number M> 1, i.e.
S ( ) < for 1 and S ( ) < M for 1 = 2.414 and the sensitivity |S(BT)| (2 21/2)/2 = 0.293. The
Figure 2. The modulus of the sensitivity function.
A simplified version of the algorithm follows: Let
C ( ) = P 1 ( ) J ( ) so that the loop gain becomes:
P ( ) C ( ) = P ( ) P 1 ( ) J ( ) = J ( )
Where J() is designed so that the desired specs are
taken into account while ensuring that the compensator
C(s) is strictly proper
For 1 :
I + J ( )
1
< I + J ( ) >
1 and 1 > 1
1 1
For all 1 :
I + J ( )
1
plot is exterior to the M sensitivity circle centered at (-1,0) with
radius 1/M >1. If this M sensitivity circle has to be circled, the
kh = lim sL ( s ) number of encirclements should conform to the Nyquist
s criterion.
The design takes into consideration the following
constraints : The frequency T at which the closed loop has its
highest gain, i.e dT()/d = 0 and for which are null for 1/2
|S(T)|(|MT2-1|)/(|2M T 2 -1|) et |L(T)| = MT/(|MT2-1|)1/2. The
frequency BT at which the closed loop has a gain of 0.707 (-3dB
cutoff frequency); the loop gain satisfies |L(BT)| 21/2 /(2 21/2)
frequency c for which |L(c)| = 1 and |T(c)|=|S(c)| . The
frequency B for which |S(B)| = 1, |T(B)|=|L(B)|. The
frequency LS for which |L(LS)| = |S(LS )| and |T(LS)| =
|S(LS )|2. The frequency BS for which |S(BS)| = 0.707 and
2.414 |L(BS)| (2 21/2)/21/2 = 0.414 et |T(BS)|. (2 21/2)/2
= 0.293. The frequency A for which |T(A)| = 1 and
Real(L(A)) = -1/2. The frequency S at which the loop gain is
tangent to the MS sensitivity circle and for which |L(S)| =[(|MS2
-1|) / MS2]1/2 and MT(S)| =[|MS2 -1|]1/2 . The frequency A for
which arg(L() = et |MS()| = GM / (GM -1) and |L()|=
1/GM = [|MS() -1|] / MS() et MT() 1/ [|MS() -1|]. The
paper further takes into accounts various constraints developed
in [9] and in [10].
IV. COMPARING PERFORMANCES OF VARIOUS CONTROL
METHOD
In the following, we will compare PID control, state
feedback control, KB control and B control.
PID control: GPID ( s ) = K P + K I s + K D s The gain KP reduces
the rise time, the gain KD corrects somehow the overshoot and
the gain KI takes care of the steady state error [11].
Velocity feedback control: we choose the following
parameters:
KB control: As P(s) has 5 poles more than zeros, we choose
a parameter f as

< M I + J ( ) >

1
M
and 1 < 1
M
(
f 1 ,1
5 5 1
<1 )
For the compensator
k ( s + z1 )( s + z2 ) ... ( s + zd 1 )
Gk =
( )(
s + a1k f s + a2 k f ... s + ad 1k f ) ( )
where zi and ai are chosen according to lead-lag design
methods.
The closed loop Tk(s) can be expressed as follows:
Tk ( s ) = Tzk ( s ) .Tdk ( s )

=
( s + z1 )( s + z2 ) ... ( s + zm ) . k

Figure 3. Example of design of J(s) in the B method.

( s + z1 )( s + z2 ) ... ( s + zm ) ( s + p1 )( s + p 2 ) ... ( s + p d ) (7)
In this SISO case; I =1, these relations can be illustrated on with: T ( s ) = ( s + z1 )( s + z2 ) ... ( s + zm )
a Nyquist plot : ensuring that for the Nyquist plot of is exterior zk
( s + z1 )( s + z2 ) ... ( s + zm )
to the sensitivity circle centered at (-1,0) with radius 1/ >1
while ensuring that in the rest of the frequency band, the Nyquist
 and T ( s ) = k |P(s)|>c/|sq| for some constant c and integer q for high
( frequencies. The controller C(s) is built as follows:
1 )( p 2 ) ... ( s + p d )
dk
s + 
p s +
As the gain k increases to infinity, zi zi and Tzk ( s ) 1 . C ( s) = P11 ( s ) J ( s ) (9)
The closed loop poles are all negative real and can be Wherein J(s) includes the transfer function of a high gain
estimated by the following formulae: k11
filter having an ultra-fast time response, e.g. of the form
s + 1
1
k ( )
1 d 1 f
p1 = so that:
a1...ad 1 k
k K s + zc z
p 2 = a1k f J (s) = 1 1 2 c = c (10)
s + 1 s + 2 s + pc p c
p 3 = a2 k f where k n , n represents the maximum slope of P(s) at
(8)
"" high frequencies. Such a design will be shown to be feasible with
standard non excessive compensator gains.
p d = ad 1k f
B control: We choose = 0.1 , M = 1.05 and build the V. DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS
compensator according to Bensoussan [4]. We choose a V. 1. Advantages of method B
compensator C(s) for the stable invertible plant P( s) . We V.1.1 Step response
assume the following behavior of the plant at high frequencies:
System Respose to a Step Function with k=50 System Respose to a Step Function with k=5000
0.35 0.35
PID PID
VF VF
0.3 0.3
KB KB
B B
0.25 0.25
Y(t) (radians)

0.2 Y(t) (radians)

0.2

0.15 0.15

0.1 0.1

0.05 0.05

0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1
Time (sec) Time (sec)

(a) Gain of 50. (b) Gain of 5000.

Figure 4. System response to a step function.
PID, VF: Velocity feedback, KB : Kelemen-Bensoussan algorithm; B: Bensoussan algorithm.

V.1.2 Frequency response

Bode f requency response f or open-loop w ith k=50
100 Bode f requency response f or open-loop w ith k=5000
200
0
100
Magnitude (dB)

Magnitude (dB)

-100
0
-200 PID
-100 PID
VF
-300 VF
KB -200
KB
B
-400 B
0 -300
0

-90
-90
Phase (deg)

Phase (deg)

-180 -180

-270 -270

-360 -360

-450 -450
-2 0 2 4 6 -2 0 2 4 6
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/sec) Frequency (rad/sec)

(a) Gain of 50. (b) Gain of 5000.

Figure 5. Bode diagrams.
 Nichols Chart w ith k=50 Nichols Chart w ith k=5000
200 200
PID PID
VF VF
KB KB
150 KB 150 KB

Open-Loop Gain (dB)

Open-Loop Gain (dB)

100 100

50 50
0 dB 0 dB
0.25 dB 0.25 dB
0.5 dB 0.5 dB
1 dB -1 dB 1 dB -1 dB
3 dB -3 dB 3 dB -3 dB
6 dB 6 dB
0 -6 dB 0 -6 dB
-12 dB -12 dB
-20 dB -20 dB

-40 dB -40 dB
-50 -50
-180 -90 0 90 180 270 360 450 540 0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360 405 450 495 540
Open-Loop Phase (deg) Open-Loop Phase (deg)

(a) Gain of 50. (b) Gain of 5000.

Figure 6. Nichols diagram of the inverted loop gain.

Bode E w ith k=50 Bode E w ith k=5000

20 50

0
0
Magnitude(dB)

Magnitude (dB)
-20
-50
-40

-100
-60

-80 -150
90 180
PID PID
VF 135 VF
Phase (deg)

Phase (deg)

45 KB KB
90
B B
45
0
0

-45 -45
-2 0 2 4 6 -2 0 2 4 6
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/sec) Frequency (rad/sec)

(a) Gain of 50. (b) Gain of 5000.

Figure 7. Sensitivity diagrams.

In Table 1, tr and ts represent the rise time and the settling rise time and the settling times are more important. The KB
time, GM and PM represent the Gain Margin and the phase method becomes advantageous only when the gain is extremely
margin. The previous results show the limits of classical high, which is an unrealistic requirement. However, both the B
methods in which higher gain beyond a given threshold and the KB methods have excellent gain and phase margins
translate into oscillations and instability. Gain margins and the system stability is not endangered by the higher gain.
decrease when the gain is increased. The B method shows a better sensitivity diagram than the KB
method.
Table 1 : Comparative performance results.
V. 2. Effect of a lead corrector in the B method
Gain of 50
GM(dB) PM(deg) tr (sec) ts (sec) In the following figures (8 to 15), the left part of the
PID 74.6 72.4 0.18 0.30 figures shows simulation results with a stable compensator
Velocity feedback 39.0 65.2 0.16 0.38 while the right part of the figures shows simulation results with
KB Method 86.6 90.4 7.8 10.4 a lead corrector in the B method. This introduction of a lead
B Method 88.1 90.6 0.058 0.076 network validates the improvement of the B method presented
Gain of 5000 in [2].
GM(dB) PM(deg) tr (sec) ts (sec)
PID 41.9 52.9 0.006 0.029 V.2.1 Step response
Velocity feedback 20.6 70.5 0.020 0.026 Fig. 7 shows the step response for different values of 2
KB Method 86.1 91.7 5.04 6.67 which imply in turn different cost of feedback, i.e. smaller
B Method 128 90 0.00059 0.00078 gain for the compensators C(s). The simulations show that lead
compensators in the B method are superior in performance in
As for the Bensoussan (B) and the Kelemen-Bensoussan the time domain. The settling times (0.25 ms) are much smaller
(KB) methods, higher gain translates in an improved time than the 8.5 ms that are obtained with other methods Chen [3],
response without overshoot. However, in the KB method, the while acceptable gain and phase margins are preserved.
 System Respose to a Step Function System Respose to a Step Function

1.2 1.2

1 1

0.8 0.8
Y(t) (um)

Y(t) (um)
0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

t=0.001 s t=0.001 s
No Corrector w2=wb Corrector(wm=w2=wb)
0.2 0.2
No Corrector w2=3/4wb Corrector(wm=w2=3/4wb)
No Corrector w2=2/4wb Corrector(wm=w2=2/4wb)
No Corrector w2=1/4wb Corrector(wm=w2=1/4wb)
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
-3 -3
Time (sec) (seconds) x 10 Time (sec) (seconds) x 10

(a) B method (b) B method with lead corrector

Figure 8. System response to a step function (The yellow line shows a target threshold of 1ms)

V.2.2 Frequency response reduction of 2 acts on the rise times tr and settling times ts.
In figures 9 to 15, frequency plots are compared B method NormOL, NormCL and NormC represent respectively the open
compensators vs B method compensators with phase lead. loop gain, the closed loop gain and the gain of the compensator
Table 2 and 3 shows the comparative results, i.e. how the C(s).

Bode frequency response for open-loop Bode frequency response for open-loop
50 50

0 0
System: No Corrector w2=1/4wb
Magnitude (dB)

System: No Corrector w2=w System: Corrector(wm=w2

Magnitude (dB)

-50 Gain Margin (dB): 4.82 -50 System: Corrector(wm=w2=1/4wb)

At frequency (rad/s): 8.79e+003 Gain Margin (dB): 16.8 Gain Margin (dB): 13.5 Gain Margin (dB): 11.4
Closed loop stable? Yes At frequency (rad/s): 3.5e+ At frequency (rad/s): 1.21e+004 At frequency (rad/s): 4.06e
-100 -100
Closed loop stable? Yes Closed loop stable? Yes Closed loop stable? Yes
-150 No Corrector w2=wb -150 Corrector(wm=w2=wb)
No Corrector w2=3/4wb Corrector(wm=w2=3/4wb)
-200 No Corrector w2=2/4wb -200 Corrector(wm=w2=2/4wb)
No Corrector w2=1/4wb Corrector(wm=w2=1/4wb)
-250 -250
0 0

-180 -180
System: No Corrector w2=1/4wb System: Corrector(wm=w2=1/4wb) System: Corrector(wm=w2=wb)
Phase (deg)

Phase (deg)

Phase Margin (deg): 31.3 Phase Margin (deg): 67.9 Phase Margin (deg): 63.4
-360 Delay Margin (sec): 9.59e-005 Delay Margin (sec): 0.000385 Delay Margin (sec): 8.96e-005
At frequency (rad/s): 5.69e+003 -360 At frequency (rad/s): 3.08e+003 At frequency (rad/s): 1.23e+004
Closed loop stable? Yes Closed loop stable? Yes Closed loop stable? Yes
-540
-540

-720
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 -720
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/s)
Frequency (rad/s)
(a) B method. (b) B method with lead corrector.
Figure 9. Bode diagrams.
Nyquist Diagram Nyquist Diagram
1.5 1.5
2 dB 0 dB -2 dB 1/M=1/1.05 circle 2 dB 0 dB -2 dB 1/M=1/1.05 circle
1/M=1/1.4 circle 1/M=1/1.4 circle
4 dB -41/M=1/2
dB circle 4 dB 1/M=1/2
-4 dB circle
1 No Corrector w2=wb 1 Corrector(wm=w2=wb)
No Corrector w2=3/4wb Corrector(wm=w2=3/4wb)
6 dB -6 dB No Corrector w2=2/4wb 6 dB -6 dB Corrector(wm=w2=2/4wb)
No Corrector w2=1/4wb Corrector(wm=w2=1/4wb)
0.5 0.5
10 dB -10 dB 10 dB -10 dB
Imaginary Axis

Imaginary Axis

20 dB -20 dB 20 dB -20 dB
0 0

-0.5 -0.5

-1 -1

-1.5 -1.5
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
Real Axis Real Axis
(a) B method. (b) B method with lead corrector.
Figure 10. Nyquist diagrams.
 Nichols Chart
Nichols Chart
60
60 Corrector(wm=w2=wb)
No Corrector w2=wb
Corrector(wm=w2=3/4wb)
No Corrector w2=3/4wb
Corrector(wm=w2=2/4wb)
No Corrector w2=2/4wb
40 Corrector(wm=w2=1/4wb)
40 No Corrector w2=1/4wb
0 dB
0 dB
0.25 dB
0.25 dB
0.5 dB
0.5 dB
20 1 dB -1 dB
20

Open-Loop Gain (dB)

1 dB -1 dB
Open-Loop Gain (dB)

3 dB
3 dB 6 dB -3 dB
6 dB -3 dB
0 -6 dB
0 -6 dB
-12 dB
-12 dB
-20 -20 dB
-20 -20 dB

-40 -40 dB
-40 -40 dB

-60 dB
-60 dB -60
-60 -315 -270 -225 -180 -135 -90 -45 0
-315 -270 -225 -180 -135 -90 -45 0
Open-Loop Phase (deg)
Open-Loop Phase (deg)

(a) B method. (b) B method with lead correctors.

Figure 11. Nichols diagrams of the loop gain (centered at increasing frequencies at fig. (b)).
Nichols Chart Nichols Chart
60 60
No Corrector w2=wb Corrector(wm=w2=wb)
No Corrector w2=3/4wb Corrector(wm=w2=3/4wb)
No Corrector w2=2/4wb Corrector(wm=w2=2/4wb)
40 No Corrector w2=1/4wb 40 Corrector(wm=w2=1/4wb)
0 dB 0 dB
0.25 dB 0.25 dB
0.5 dB 0.5 dB
20 1 dB 20 1 dB
Open-Loop Gain (dB)

Open-Loop Gain (dB)

3 dB 3 dB
6 dB 6 dB
0 0

-20 -20

-40 -40

-60 -60
0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315
Open-Loop Phase (deg) Open-Loop Phase (deg)

(a) B method. (b) B method with lead corrector.

Figure 12. Nichols diagrams of the inverse of the loop gain.
Bode E Bode E
10 10

0 0
Magnitude (dB)

Magnitude (dB)

-10 -10

-20 -20

-30 No Corrector w2=wb -30 Corrector(wm=w2=wb)

No Corrector w2=3/4wb Corrector(wm=w2=3/4wb)
-40 No Corrector w2=2/4wb -40 Corrector(wm=w2=2/4wb)
No Corrector w2=1/4wb Corrector(wm=w2=1/4wb)
-50 -50
135 90

90
Phase (deg)

Phase (deg)

45

45

0
0

-45 -45
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/s) Frequency (rad/s)

(a) B method. (b) B method with lead corrector.

Figure 13. Sensitivity diagrams.
Bode T Bode T

0 0
Magnitude (dB)

Magnitude (dB)

-50
-50
-100
-100
No Corrector w2=wb -150 Corrector(wm=w2=wb)
-150 No Corrector w2=3/4wb Corrector(wm=w2=3/4wb)
No Corrector w2=2/4wb -200 Corrector(wm=w2=2/4wb)
No Corrector w2=1/4wb Corrector(wm=w2=1/4wb)
-200 -250
0 0

-180 -180
Phase (deg)

Phase (deg)

-360 -360

-540 -540

-720 -720
2 3 4 5 6 2 3 4 5 6
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/s) Frequency (rad/s)

(a) B method. (b) B method with lead corrector.

Figure 14. Diagrams Bode T.
 Bode C Bode C
100 100
No Corrector w2=wb Corrector(wm=w2=wb)
No Corrector w2=3/4wb Corrector(wm=w2=3/4wb)
50 50
No Corrector w2=2/4wb Corrector(wm=w2=2/4wb)

Magnitude (dB)
Magnitude (dB)

No Corrector w2=1/4wb Corrector(wm=w2=1/4wb)

0 0

-50 -50

-100 -100

-150 -150
360 360

270 270

Phase (deg)
Phase (deg)

180
180
90
90
0
0
-90

-180 -90
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/s) Frequency (rad/s)

(a) B method. (b) B method with lead corrector.

Figure 15. Diagrams Bode C.
Note that the design is improved when the Nichols chart stays as [4] D. Bensoussan, System and method for feedback control /Application
close to the 0 dB closed loop gain circle and when the Nichols chart of 13/217.861, August 25, 2011, 2011.
the inverse of the plant stays as close as possible to the 0 dB. This [5] M. Chen Ben, Hard Disk Drive Servo System2006: Springer.
[6] J.S. Freudenberg and D. Looze, Right half plane poles and zeros and
translates into the Nyquist chart by a Nyquist diagram that stays as
design trade-offs in Feedback systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic
close as possible to the real line of -1/2. Note also that closed loop Control, 1985. AC-30: p. 555-565.
gains closer to 0 dB implies a reduced overshoot of the time response. [7] J.S. Freudenberg and D. Looze, Frequency Domain Properties of Scalar
Without a lead network, the overshot increases rapidly when 2 is and Multivariable Feedback Systems. Lecture Notes in Control and
decreased. The lead network makes it possible to use smaller 2 and Information Sciences, 1988. 104.
get acceptable results. Moreover, by reducing 2, the response is [8] G.C. Goodwin and M.M. Seron, Fundamental design trade-offs in
generally slower but is still acceptable and the norm of the filtering, prediction and smoothing. IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control,
compensator decreases to a very reasonable level. 1997. 42(9): p. 1240-51.
[9] K.J. Astrom, Limitations on Control System Performance. European
Journal of Control 2000. 6: p. 2-21.
VI. CONCLUSION [10] D. Garcia, Auto-ajustement de rgulateurs PID robustes dans le domaine
frquentiel, 2006, cole polytechnique de Lausanne.
For a given gain, the B method gives the best results in [11] B.R. Thummeti and M.J. Nigam, Design and Implementation of a Hard
terms of the speed of the time response. The rise time and Disk Drive Read/Write Head Controller Using FPGA for Optimal
settling time (to 5% of the final value) are the shortest Performance. Journal of Physical Sciences, 2007. 11: p. 185-198.
independently of the loop gain. The gain and phase margins are
more than adequate and also compare advantageously to other Table 2: Compensation - Method B.
1 50 50 50 50
methods. Note that for the PID method or the velocity feedback
b 1.3 x105 1.3 x105 1.3 x105 1.3 x105
method, there exists a threshold gain beyond which the system 2 1.3 x105 9.8 x104 6.5 x104 3.3 x104
output oscillates and another threshold for which the system k1 6223 6223 6223 6223
becomes unstable. Such thresholds do not exist in the KB tr (ms) 0.32 0.26 0.20 0.21
method and the B method. Simulation results confirm that the ts (ms) 0.45 0.36 0.58 2.4
KB result is theoretical and becomes ideal when k . The Overshoot(%) 0 0.13 8.83 47.17
GM 6.9 5.2 3.5 1.7
cost of feedback can be reduced through the appropriate choice PM 74.2 68.9 58.7 31.3
of the all parameters appearing in J(s). Insertion of a lead NormOL 124.45 124.45 124.45 124.45
network in the intermediate frequency range greatly improves NormCL 0.992 0.992 1.02 2.21
performance and allows to use a reduced bandwidth. Research NormC 490.95 113.09 13.77 2.58
focus on an optimal phase network of J(s) while reducing the
cost of feedback could lead to better performances. Table 3: Compensation - Method B with a lead corrector.
This study shows that improving the reading speed of a hard 1 50 50 50 50
drive disk is possible and this property might be used to reduce the b 1.3 x105 1.3 x105 1.3 x105 1.3 x105
speed of rotation of the disk and prolong the life of the battery. 2 1.3 x105 9.8 x104 6.5 x104 3.3 x104
k1 6223 6223 6223 6223
tr (ms) 0.104 0.146 0.226 0.476
REFERENCES ts (ms) 0.235 0.315 0.316 0.667
[1] D. Bensoussan, Simultaneous improvement of time and frequency Overshoot(%) 3.02 2.56 1.86 0.551
performance, in 7th IFAC Symposium on Robust Control Design2012: GM 3.7 4.1 4.4 4.7
Aalborg, Denmark. PM 63.4 64.3 65.4 67.9
[2] M. Keleman, Arbitrarily fast and robust tracking by feedback. NormOL 248.90 186.68 124.45 62.23
International Journal of control, 2002. 75: p. 443-465. NormCL 0.996 0.995 0.992 0.984
[3] M. Keleman and D. Bensoussan, On the Design, Robustness, NormC 1628.89 432.28 53.57 1.86
Implementation and Use of Quasi-Linear Feedback Compensator.
International Journal of Control, 2004. 77(6): p. 517-545.