Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Dr Abraham T Mathew
What is a Control System?
Is it the physical system?
INPUT
INPUT
SUCCESS IN CONTROL DESIGN IS SAID TO BE BASED ON THE
SUCCESS IN IDENTIFYING THE SYSTEM BOUNDARY,
INPUTS,OUTPUTS & THE ENVIRONMENT
Model Based Control Design- Issues
Analytical or computational models cannot truly characterize and
emulate the phenomenon.
A model, no matter how detailed, is never a completely accurate
representation of a real physical system
Control Design-classical way
Normally, in the conventional control design for SISO
system, the stability margin is specified to ensure stability in
the presence of model uncertainties
But, the uncertainties or perturbations are not quantified,
nor performance was not taken into account in terms of
disturbance, noise etc.
For MIMO systems, many of the SISO methods cannot be
scaled up
Robust Control
Design a controller such that-
some level of performance of the controlled system is
guaranteed-
irrespective of the changes in the plant dynamics/process
dynamics within a predefined class and
the stability is guaranteed
Control design targets
Stability
Disturbance rejection
Sensor(measurement) noise rejection
Avoidance of actuator saturation
Robustness- the process/plant performance should not
deteriorate to unacceptable level if there occurs the changes due
to the uncertainties
All these targets cannot be achieved simultaneously and perfectly. So
there has to be some compromise or tradeoffs, because of various
reasons
Modeling in the context of robust control
1 0 0
0 1 0
i
TF FORM
NK m
(s) J e La a0
2
v( s ) 2 Ra
s s s
2
N K m s s b1s b2
2
La J e La
Nominal Model
Km=0.05 Nm/A, Ra=1.2 ohms, La=0.05H
Jm=8x10-4 kgm2 , J=0.020 kgm2
N=12
Je=J+N2Jm=0.1352 kgm2
Uncertainty
Let the parameters are subject to changes as follows
0.04Km 0.06
6x10-4 Jm 10-3
0.01J 0.05
Model with Uncertainty
(as an Interval System)
[74.22, 99.58]
G( s) 2
s s 12s [47.8, 53.4]
Abstracting a Control System Structure
Control System Structure
Disturbance
w(t)
wm Sensor Noise v(t)
S1
d (s) P (s)w(s)
w
(2)
Then, we have
y ( s ) P ( s ) y ( s ) v( s )
m s
(4)
Ideally Ps(s)=1 and v(t)=0 so that ym=y
(this is achieved if sensor bandwidth is larger than system
bandwidth or we say the sensor is fast and accurate)
Now, look at the Controller
Disturbance
w(t)
wm Sensor Noise v(t)
S1
s) all
u(Not Fdthe d
( s)
(s) ythree Fm (s)need
inputs ) be
ym (sto (s)wmalways
Fwused (s) here. Several
(5)
control structures are defined according to whether ym, yd or wm
is used to produce u or not . Accordingly we will have different
schemes of control
1. Single Degree of Freedom controller
When Fm=-Fd and Fw=0, we have
yd +
Fd u
-
ym
Two Degree of Freedom Controller
If we have a structure of the form given below, designer will
have freedom to independently select Fm and Fd we will have
the TDoF Feedback Controller structure
yd
+
Fd u
+
Fm ym
Feedback Control Scheme v
w
Fw
Pw
d
yd + + + + ym
u
Fd P + Ps +
y
+
Fm
Problem formulation
System enclosed in the dotted box is seen to have three
inputs and one output
By assuming linearity, we can say that plant output y(t) is
produced as a superposition of the effects of these three
signals coming to the output port through three transfer
channels
That is
e( s) y ( s ) H ( s) y ( s ) H ( s) w( s) H ( s )v( s)
d d d w v
Or
e( s) 1 H ( s)y ( s) H ( s) w( s ) H ( s )v( s)
d d w v
Fw
Pw
d
yd + + + + ym
u
Fd P + Ps +
y
+
Fm
Emphasis for output disturbance
In cases where it is desirable or convenient to work with the
output disturbance d rather than w, we have
e( s ) y ( s ) H ( s ) y ( s ) H ( s ) d ( s ) H ( s ) v ( s )
d d d wd v
Or
e( s) 1 H ( s)y ( s ) H ( s)d ( s ) H ( s)v( s)
d d wd v
Tracking performance
For the system to ideally track the reference, the error must
be zero
To achieve this for all possible yd,v,w and d, we would
require Hd(s)=1 and Hw(s)= Hwd(s)=Hv(s)=0
In the practical setting, as we see more in detail, we can see
that this condition cannot be satisfied perfectly for the entire
bandwidth or entire region of system perturbations
Some design tradeoffs, optimality conditions and so on would
have to be called for as we have already noted.
Admissible/acceptable designs
In order to do the adjustment/tradeoff for obtaining an
admissible or acceptable design and discriminate between
acceptable and unacceptable departures from the ideal
performance, we need to have the specifications
These specifications give rise to different control structures
like open loop, feedforward, feedback, etc.
We may differentiate between SISO and MIMO and start
with SISO and generalize the notations for MIMO,
subsequently
Control System Performance
From a systems perspective, the performance specification
for control system starts with Stability
Followed by Sensitivity, Disturbance Rejection, Noise
Rejection etc. where needed.
Stability
When it comes to stability, in the modern settings of design,
we consider two classes of stability, namely
Input-output stability
Internal stability
Internal stability is of paramount importance in the MIMO
system framework, both in Matrix Transfer function form
and State variable/transfer function forms
Internal Stability
A system to be internally stable means all the transfer functions
associated with all the transfer channels connecting exogenous
input to the output(including set point, disturbance & noise) shall
be stable
In reality, it is possible for a system to be internally unstable and
yet to have a stable set point to output channel transfer functions
Under this circumstance, we say that system has unstable hidden
modes
Therefore, internal stability must be ensured before the transfer
function that define the response to the system inputs are
considered
Design Model
Let P be a set of all plants that each member of set
P is an admissible model, given the uncertainty
region (interval)
P0 in P is one model with the nominal value of the
parameters
If P0 is used for the robust designs, then let us call P0 as Design
model (for the sake of convenience!!)
Model Uncertainty & Internal stability
If the plant is expected to deviate from the design
model(nominal model), it is better represented by a set of
models centered on the design model(nominal model)
For a control system to be acceptable, the design must be
internally stable for every model in the set
This property is known as robust stability
Once stability & robustness are assured, we can shift the
attention to response
Summary
A model of the physical system is only an approximation of
the real phenomenon/process
Control system output is the measurement showing the
status or effectiveness of control
Inputs, in a general framework will include set point,
disturbance and measurement noise
Summary contd
Models are subjected to various uncertainties
Nominal model in the set of uncertain models can be used as
Design model
Internal Stability and robust stability are starting points for
good control system design
Once stability is assured, other performance measures can be
specified
Design Dilemma
It will not usually be possible(which we will see in detail) to
have good set point tracking, and disturbance rejection and
noise rejection uniformly effectively for all functions of yd, v,
w and d
Also, emphasis on sensitivity on one may negatively affect the
other
Robust Control System
A system is said to be robust when
It is durable, hardy and resilient
It has low sensitivities in the system passband
It is stable over the range of parameter variations
The performance continues to meet the specifications in the
presence of a set of changes in the system parameters
Robustness is the sensitivity to the effects that are not
considered in the analysis and design-
for example,
the disturbances,
measurement noise, and
unmodeled dynamics
Sensitivity & Sensitivity Analysis
Sensitivity
It is the percentage change in system transmission or
response or some quantity of interest with respect to the
percentage change in another quantity
In control theory we use
Parameter Sensitivity
System Sensitivity
Root Sensitivity
Eigenvalue Sensitivity
Parameter Sensitivity
Let T be the system function which depends on a parameter
Then, the parameter sensitivity ST of T with respect to s
defined as
T T
ln T T T
S
T
ln
System Sensitivity
Let T be the system closed loop transfer function which
depends on the open loop transfer function G
Then sensitivity of T w.r.t G is given as
T T
ln T T T
S
T
ln G G G
G
G G
Root Sensitivity
Let T be the system closed loop transfer function with the ith
root given as i and the parameter of interest is say K
Root sensitivity is the sensitivity in terms of the position of
the roots of the characteristic equation on the (, j)
plane(root locus plane)
Significance of Root Sensitivity
Roots of the characteristic equation represents the
dominant(visible) modes of the transient response
The effect of parameter variation on the position of the root
and the direction of shift of the root are important and useful
measures to say about the sensitivity
Can be combined with Root Locus Method for Control
Designs
Definition of Root Sensitivity
The root sensitivity of the system T(s) is defined as
S
i
i i
ln K K
K
m
Let K ( s z )
T ( s)
1 j
j 1
n
( s )
i 1
i
Contd
Let K be a parameter that influences the location of the roots i
and the gain K1
Then the root sensitivity is related to the system sensitivity to K
and is given as(if zeros of T(s) are not dependent)
ln K n 1
S
T
1 i
ln K ln K ( s )
K
i 1
i
In the event of gain K1 independent of K, we have
n 1 1 n
S
T i
S i
ln K ( s ) (s )
K K
i 1 i 1
i i
Eigenvalue Sensitivity
Let us assume that we have the relation(A is from the state
space equation)
A
i i i
A
A i i i
a a a a
i i i
kj kj kj kj
Contd
Premultiplying with i , the left eigenvector we have ii=1
and i (A-i I)=0
Then, we get
A
i
a a
i i
kj kj
Contd A
All elements in will
a be zero except the (k,j)th element,
kj
which will be 1
Therefore we get
i
a
ik ji
kj
yd + u
G y
G
T
1 G
T
ln T T G T 1
S
T
ln G G T G 1 G
G
G
Waterbed effect
Now, add T and S
We get T+S =1
System with cascade compensator
We consider the following system
yd + u y
K G
-
GK
T
1 GK
T
ln T T G T 1
S
T
ln G G T G 1 GK
G
G
Check T+S
System with feedback compensator
Consider the following system
yd + u
G y
H
G
T
1 GH
T
ln T T G T 1
S
T
Check T+S
ln G G T G 1 GH
G
G
Sensitivity & Complimentary Sensitivity Functions
In the Robust Control Literature, Sensitivity Function plays a
crucial role
Let S(s) be the Sensitivity Function
Then T(s) is the Complimentary Sensitivity Function such
that S+T=1 for SISO and S+T=I for MIMO
Open Loop Control
Open Loop Control
It is the simplest control structure
Limited in performance
Usually reserved for special applications where feedback
control is either impossible or unnecessary
It is a good starting point for control design
It helps to appreciate the advantages of feedback control
Stability, performance etc are relatively in simpler forms to
understand
Open Loop Structure
d
+
yd + y -
u e
F P
+
Input-Output Relations
In open loop control input yd is usually a synthesized signal
for the given application and u is derived from that as shown
Open loop control requires no measurements.
Now, from Figure above, we write as
y FPy d
d
and e (1 FP) y d d
H ( s) F ( s) P( s)
d
and H ( s) 1
wd
Tracking Performance
Perfect tracking of yd occurs if
H ( s ) F ( s ) P( s ) 1
d
That is, if
F ( s ) P( s ) 1
FP
FP
S
H 0
1
P
P
P 0
+
yd + u y
F P
z
Analysis
In any system, any addition or deletion of some of the input lines
or some output lines wont alter the internal stability
We shall add inputs and outputs and view this as injecting test
inputs into the system and taking extra measurements, neither of
which is expected to change the stability properties of the system
The test inputs and and outputs are chosen so that the resulting
system is controllable and observable
For such a fully controllable and observable system there shall not
be any hidden modes
So, internal stability is then guaranteed by input-output stability
yd u y
Fig.1 F P
+
Fig.2 yd + u y
F P
The system, in Fig 1 and Fig 2 are same but with additional input v
and one additional output z in Fig 2
Controllability/Observability/Stability
System in Fig.2 is controllable and observable if both F(s) and P(s)
are controllable and observable
System in Fig 2 is internally stable if and only if the both F(s) and
P(s) are stable. See below
Y ( s ) FPy ( s ) Pv( s )
d
z ( s ) Fy ( s )
d
Or
y( s ) FP P y ( s )
z ( s ) F 0 v( s )
d
Analysis contd
Because the realization is controllable and observable, it is
internally stable if, and only if, it is input-output stable.
That is, if all elements of the matrix transfer function above
are stable
Thus F(s), P(s) and F(s)P(s) must have only LHP poles
If P is of non-minimum phase type, then F cannot be used to
cancel the RHP zeros of P, because then F will become
unstable.
Feedforward Control
Pw
d
+
u y + y
P
z
Pw w
Pw
d
d
- +
u y + y
F P
z
Here, to realize Feedforward control:
+ +
e + y -
F u e
yd + P
-
Ps
ym
+
+ v
Analysis
We have
FP 1
y( s ) y (s) d (s)
1 FP 1 FP
d
1 1
e( s ) y ( s ) y( s ) y (s) d (s)
1 FP 1 FP
d d
With Sensor noise/Measurement Noise
If yd =d=0 and v0, then
y( s ) FP( y v )
FP
y( s ) v( s ) T ( s )v( s )
1 FP
and
e( s ) y y( s ) T ( s )v( s )
d
Norms are Performance Measures
Signal forms and Signal Norms
Norm based approach for control design gives a sound
platform for robust control designs
Different types of norms are used in control systems
Use would be depending on the mathematical approaches
used to define the norm
Norms of signals and systems
Euclidean Norm or l2 norm for vector x is given as
x x
2
n
i 1
i
2
1
2
( x x)
T
1
2
x x (t ) x(t )dt
1
T 2
2
2
1
rms( x ) lim x (t ) x(t )dt
T T
T
2T
T
Frobenius Norm
For an mxr matrix A, the Frobenius norm is defines as
A a
2
m r
i 1 j 1
2
i, j
1
2
2
A 2 tr ( A A) tr ( AA )
T T
System Norm
LTI systems are generalization of matrices-
A matrix operates on a vector to produce another vector
An LTI system operates on a signal to produce another signal
So, analogous to Frobenius norm, we can define the system
norm
L2 Norm for LTI systems
Let G(s) be an mxr matrix transfer function
Then the L2 norm for G(s) is defined as
1
G tr G ( j)G( j)d
2
T
2
2
2j
2
1
tr (G ( s )G( s ))ds
T
2j
Contour of integration for the last integral is along the
entire imaginary axis and the infinite semicircle in the LHP
or RHP
Since G(s) is strictly proper, it is easily shown that the
integral vanishes over the semicircle
If G L2 and in addition, G is stable, then we say that G H2
H2 is the Hardy Space defined with the 2-norm
Exercise
Calculate the L2 norm of G(s) given as:
1 ( s 3 ) ( s 2 )
G( s )
s 3s 2 2
2
( s 2)
Answer
3s 21
2
tr G ( s )G( s )
T
A max Ad
2i d 1 2
2
=sqrt(eigen(ATA))
( A)
By Parsevals theorem
1
y G( j) u( j) d
2 2 2
(A)
2
2
Clearly
1
y sup G( j) u( j) d
2 2 2
2
2
Or
y sup G( j) u
2 2 2
2 2
(B)
G( j )
2
will approach 0
If G( j)has a maximum at some finite value of , we may
choose 0 to be that frequency
If not, then G( j must
) approach a supremum as
.
We can make 0 as large as we like and will 0as)
G( jbe
close to the supremum as we wish
The RHS of inequality in (B) can be reached arbitrarily
closely and we get
sup y sup G( j)
2
u 2 1
Hinfinity Norm
The norm calculated last is also the infinity norm given by
1
G lim( G( j) )
p p
p
1 2
y G( j)u( j) d
2
2
2
1 2
y [ (G( j))] u( j) d
2 2
2
2
Further, we may write as
y sup (G( j)
1
u( j) d
2 2 2
2
2
2
Or
2
y sup [G( j)] u
2
2 2
2
Contd
The factor ||u(j)||2 in the integrand refers to the 2-norm
of the vector u(j)
In SISO, the equivalent term refers to the 2-norm of a signal
can be approached
y 2 sup [G( closely,
arbitrarily
j)] by
2 2
u propoer
2 choice of
u(j)
Essentially we pick u(j) to be the eigenvector of
G*(j)G(j) corresponding to the largest eigenvalue, and we
concentrate the spectrum of u(j) at the frequency where
is the largest (or for some frequencythat is arbitrarily large,
if has no maximum, but a supremum. Therefore
+
yd u
+
G y
H
Analysis
G
T (s )
1 GH
yd
and
G
T (s )
1 GH
d
+
yd u
+ +
G y
H
Analysis
We have
G
T (s )
1 GH
yd
and
1
T (s )
1 GH
d
yd u
+
G y
-
+
H
+
n
Analysis
G
T (s )
1 GH
yd
and
GH
T (s )
1 GH
n
yd u
+
K G y
wa(s) a (s)
+
+
G(s)
Multiplicative Uncertainty
wm(s) m (s)
G(s)
+
Inverse Multiplicative
im (s) wim(s)
+
+
G(s)
Division Uncertainty
Consider the
1
G (s) with 0.4 0.8
s s 1
p 2
G p ( s)
1 w ( s ) 0.2s
d
s 2 0.6s 1
(-1,j0) Re
?
|1+G(j)|
G(j)
Robust Stability with Multiplicative Uncertainty
Gp(s)
Wm(s) m(s)
+
+ + y
yd
K(s) u
G(s)
-
Analysis
We have
G ( s ) G( s )(1 w ( s ) ( s ))
p m m
G(s) w ( s )G( s ) ( s )
m m
m
1
Assume that the nominal plant is stable
Using Nyquist stability condition, we need
w ( s )G( s ) 1 G( s )
m
Or w ( s )G( s )
m
1
1 G( s )
We have
S ( s ) [1 K ( s )G( s )]
1
S (s) T (s) 1
For robust stability, we want
w ( s ) K ( s )G( s )
m
1
1 K ( s )G( s )
Or w ( s)T ( s ) 1, and
m
using H-inf we have
w ( s )T ( s ) 1
m
Robust Performance
We find the bounds on the Sensitivity Function S and/or
Complimentary Sensitivity Function T for the given bounds
on Disturbance or Measurement noise
Doyles Theorem
A necessary and sufficient condition for robust performance
is to satisfy the condition
W1S
W2T
1
Books
Prabha Kundur Power System Stability & Control Tata McGrawHill,
1994|2012
Richard C Dorf & Robert H Bishop, Modern Control Systems Addison
Wesley, 1999
Pierre R. Belanger, Control Engineering: A Modern Approach Saunders
College Publishing, 1995
John Dorsey, Continuous & Discrete Time Control Systems, McGrawHill
International, 2002
Vladimir Zakian, Control Systems Design-A new Framework, Springer 2005