Multivariable Lec6

Multivariable Control Systems
Ali Karimpour p Assistant Professor Ferdowsi University of Mashhad
Chapter 6
Chapter 6
p g y Introduction to Decoupling Control and Uncertainty
Topics to be covered include:

Decoupling Pre and post compensators and the SVD controller D Decoupling by State F db k li b St t Feedback Diagonal controller (decentralized control) Uncertainty in MIMO Systems
2
Ali Karimpour July 2012
Chapter 6
Introduction
& x = Ax + Bu y = Cx
G ( s ) = C ( sI A) 1 B
y1 ( s ) = g11 ( s )u1 ( s ) + g12 ( s )u 2 ( s ) + ..... + g1 p ( s )u p ( s ) y 2 ( s ) = g 21 ( s )u1 ( s ) + g 22 ( s )u 2 ( s ) + ..... + g 2 p ( s )u p ( s ) .................................................................................... .................................................................................... y p ( s ) = g p1 ( s )u1 ( s ) + g p 2 ( s )u 2 ( s ) + ..... + g pp ( s )u p ( s )
We see that every input controls more than one output and that every output is controlled by more than one input. Because of this phenomenon which is called interaction it is generally phenomenon, interaction, very difficult to control a multivariable system.
3
Chapter 6
Topics to be covered
Decoupling Pre and post compensators and the SVD controller Decoupling by State Feedback Diagonal controller (decentralized control) Uncertainty in MIMO Systems
4
Chapter 6
Decoupling
Definition 6-1 A multivariable system is said to be decoupled if its transfer-function matrix is diagonal and nonsingular.
A conceptually simple approach to multivariable control is given by a two-steps procedure in which 1. We first design a compensator to deal with the interactions in G(s) and
G s ( s ) = G ( s )Ws ( s )
Decoupling
2. 2 Then design a diagonal controller using methods similar to those for SISO systems. systems
K s (s )
K ( s ) = Ws ( s ) K s ( s )
5
Chapter 6
Decoupling
1. We first design a compensator to deal with the interactions in G(s) and
G s ( s ) = G ( s )Ws ( s )
Decoupling p g
Dynamic decoupling
Gs (s) is diagonal at all frequencies.
For example with Gs = I we can choose Ws ( s ) = G 1 ( s )
Then by K s ( s ) = l ( s ) I we have K(s) = G -1(s)l(s) It usually refers to an inverse-based controller. y
Steady-state decoupling
Gs (0) is diagonal.
This may be obtained by selecting a constant pre compensator Approximate decoupling at frequency 0
G0 is a real approximation of Gs ( j0 )
Ws = G 1 (0)
Gs ( j0 ) is as diagonal as possible.
W s = G 01
This is usually obtained by choosing a constant pre compensator
BW frequency is a good selection 6 0 for
Chapter 6
Decoupling
The idea of using a decoupling controller is appealing, but there are several difficulties. a. We cannot in general choose Gs freely. For example, Ws(s) must not cancel any
RHP-zeros and RHP poles in G(s) b. As we might expect, decoupling may be very sensitive to modeling errors and
uncertainties. c. The requirement of decoupling may not be desirable for disturbance rejection. One popular design method, which essentially yields a decoupling controller, is the internal model control (IMC) approach (Morari and Zafiriou). Another A h common strategy, which avoids most of the problems just mentioned, is to hi h id f h bl j i d i use partial (one-way) decoupling where Gs(s) is upper or lower triangular. 7
Chapter 6
8
Chapter 6
Pre and post compensators and the SVD controller

The pre compensator approach may be extended by introducing a post compensator
Gs ( s ) = Wsp ( s )G ( s )Ws ( s )
The overall controller is then
K ( s ) = Ws ( s ) K s ( s )Wsp ( s )
9
Chapter 6
10
Chapter 6
Decoupling by State Feedback

In this section we consider the decoupling of a control system in state space representation. Let
& x = Ax + Bu y = Cx + Du
Suppose G ( s ) = C ( sI A) 1 B + D
Then if | D | 0
G ( s )G ( s ) 1 diagonal
G ( s ) 1 = C ( sI A) 1 B + D
= D 1C ( sI A + BD 1C ) 1 BD 1 + D 1
But i th B t in the case of |D|=0 f |D| 0 Static state feedback Static t t f db k St ti output feedback Dynamic output feedback
u (t ) = Kx (t ) + Tr (t ) u (t ) = K ( t ) + T (t ) Ky Tr
11
Chapter 6

Decoupling through state feedback Let
& x = Ax + Bu & x = ( A BE 1 F ) x + BE 1r 1 Suppose u (t ) = E (Fx (t ) r (t ) ) Then we have y = Cx y = Cx
The transfer function matrix is
) G ( s ) = C ( sI A + BE 1 F ) 1 BE 1
We h ll d i i h f ll i W shall derive in the following the condition on G( ) under which the system can be h di i G(s) d hi h h b decoupled by state feedback.
12
Chapter 6

Theorem 6-1 A system represented by
& x = Ax + Bu y = Cx
with the transfer function matrix G(s) can be decoupled by state feedback of the form
u (t ) = E 1 (Fx (t ) r (t ) )
if and only if the constant matrix E is nonsingular. Furthermore the new system is in the form:
s d1 Gnew ( s ) = 0
E1 s d1 E2 0 E = . = lim O G ( s ) s d 0 . s p E p Proof: See Linear system theory and design Chi-Tsong Chen
0 O d m s C1 A d1 d2 C 2 A F= . . dp C p A
13
Chapter 6

Example 6-1 Use state feedback to decouple the following system.
1 0 1 0 & x = 0 0 1 x + 0 6 11 6 0 0 1 u 0 1 y= 0 0 1 0 x 1
Solution: S l i Transfer function of the system is f f i f h i
s 2 + 6s + 11 3 s + 6s 2 + 11s + 6 1 G ( s) = C ( sI A) B = 6 s 2 + 5s + 6
s+6 s 3 + 6s 2 + 11s + 6 s6 s 2 + 5s + 6
The differences in degree of the first row of G(s) are 1 and 2, hence d1=1 and s 2 + 6s + 11 s+6 E1 = lim s 3 = [1 0] 2 3 2 s s + 6s + 11s + 6 s + 6s + 11s + 6 The differences in degree of the second row of G(s) are 2 and 1, hence d2=1 and g () , 6 s6 E 2 = lim s 2 = [0 1] 14 s s + 5s + 6 s 2 + 5s + 6
Chapter 6

Solution (continue):
1 0 E= 0 1 Now is i N E i unitary matrix and clearly nonsingular so decoupling by state feedback is i d l l i l d li b f db k i possible and C1 Ad1 0 1 0 = F = d2 C2 A 6 11 5
1
1 0 1 0 0 u (t ) = E (Fx(t ) r (t ) ) = 6 11 5 x(t ) r (t ) 0 1 The decoupled system is 0 0 1 0 & x = ( A BE 1 F ) x + BE 1r = 6 11 6 x + 0 6 11 6 0 1 0 0 y = Cx = x 0 1 1
0 1 r 0
Exercise 1: Derive the corresponding decoupled transfer function matrix.
15
Chapter 6
Property of Decoupling by State Feedback

12All poles of decoupled are on origin. Decoupled system is:
Gdecouple ( s ) = diag s d1 , ..., s d n
34-
No transmission zero in decoupled system. i i i d l d Transmission zero of the system are deleted .
5- Unstable transmission zero is the main limitation of method.
16
Chapter 6
Exercise 2: Decouple following system and find the decoupled transfer function. p g y p
0 1 & x= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 x + 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 u 1 0
0 1 0 0 y= x 0 0 0 1
Exercise 3: Use state feedback to decouple the following system and put the poles of new system on s=-3.
1 0 1 0 & x = 0 0 1 x + 0 6 11 6 0 0 1 u 0 1 y= 0 0 1 0 x 1
17
Chapter 6
18
Chapter 6
Diagonal controller (decentralized control)

Another simple approach to multivariable controller design is to use a diagonal or block diagonal controller K(s) This is often referred to as decentralized control. K(s). control
Clearly, this works well if G(s) is close to diagonal, because then the plant to be controlled is essentially a collection of independent sub plants and each element in plants, K(s) may be designed independently. , g () g , performance with However, if off diagonal elements in G(s) are large, then the p decentralized diagonal control may be poor because no attempt is made to counteract the interactions.
19
Chapter 6
The d i Th design of decentralized control systems involves two steps: fd t li d t l t i l t t 1_ 1 2_ The choice of pairings (control configuration selection) The design (tuning) of each controller ki(s)
20
Chapter 6
Input-Output Pairing
Definition of RGA (Relative Gain Array)
Physical Meaning of RGA: Let Relative gain?
y1 = g11u1 + g12u2 y2 = g 21u1 + g 22u2
ij = g ij / hij
uk =0, k j yk =0, k i
g ij hij
yi relation between yi and u j if other inputs = 0 or u j yi relation between yi and u j if other outputs = 0 or u j
y1 = g11u1 + g12u2 0 = g 21u1 + g 22u2
u2 =
g 21 u1 g 22
g 21 ) u1 y1 = g11 + g12 ( g 22
21
(G ) = RGA(G ) = G G T
Chapter 6
Example: Let
y1 = g11u1 + g12u2 y2 = g 21u1 + g 22u2
(G ) = G G
T
1 = 1
=1 Open loop and closed loop gains are the same, so interactions has no effect. =0 g11=0 so u1 has no effect on y1. 0< Closing second loop leads to change the gain between y1 and u1. <0 Closing second loop leads to changing the sign of the gain between y1 and u1.(Very Bad) In this section we provide two useful rules for pairing inputs and outputs. outputs
1_ To avoid instability caused by interactions in the crossover region one should prefer pairings for which the RGA matrix in this frequency range is close to identity. 2_ To avoid instability caused by interactions at low frequencies one should avoid 22 pairings with negative steady state RGA elements.
Chapter 6
RGA property: 11 It is independent of input and output scaling. scaling 2- Its rows and columns sum to 1. 3- The RGA is identity matrix if G is upper or lower triangular. 4- Plant with large RGA elements are ill conditioned. 5- Suppose G(s) has no zeros or poles at s=0. If ij() (0) exist and have different signs then one of the following must be true. * G(s) has an RHP zeros. * Gij(s) has an RHP zeros. * gij(s) has an RHP zeros. 6- If gij gij(1-1/ij) then the perturbed system is singular. 7- Changing two columns/rows of G leads to same changes to Karimpour July 2012 Ali its RGA
23
Chapter 6

Example 6-2 Select suitable pairing for the following plant
10.2 G (0) = 15.5 18.1 5.6 8.4 0.4 1.4 0.7 1.8
Solution: RGA of the system is

1.45 0.96 (0) = 0.94 0.37 0.9 0.07 1.41 0.43 1.98
24
Chapter 6

The RGA based techniques have many important advantages, such as very simple in calculation as it only uses process steady-state gain matrix and scaling independent. Moreover, using steady-state gain alone may result in incorrect interaction measures and consequently loop pairing decisions, since no dynamic information of the process is taken into consideration. Many improved approaches, RGA-like, have been proposed and described in all process control textbooks, for defining different measures of dynamic loop interactions. interactions Relative Omega Array (ROmA),
[1] D.Q. Mayne, The design of linear multivariable systems, Automatica, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 201 207, Mar. 1973. 201207 Mar 1973
Absolute Relative Gain Array (ARGA), Relative Normalized Gain Array (RNGA), (RNGA)
[2] ARGA Loop Pairing Criteria for Multivariable Systems A. Balestrino, E. Crisostomi, A. Landi, and A. Menicagli ,2008 [3] RNGA based control system configuration for multivariable processes Mao-Jun He, Wen-Jian Cai *, Wei Ni, Li-Hua Xie Journal of Process Control 19 (2009) 10361042
25
Chapter 6

Next example, for which the RGA based loop pairing criterion gives an inaccurate interaction assessment, are employed to demonstrate the effectiveness of th proposed i t ff ti f the d interaction measure and l ti d loop pairing criterion. ii it i Example 6-3: Consider the two-input two-output process: RGA=Diagonal pairing RNGA =Off-diagonal pairing Off di l ii To illustrate the validity of above results, decentralized controllers for both diagonal and off-diagonal pairings are designed respectively based on g g p g g p y the IMC-PID controller tuning rules. To evaluate the output control performance, we consider a unit step set-point Change of all control loops one-by-one and the integral square error (ISE) is used to evaluate the control performance.
26
Chapter 6

The simulation results and ISE values are given in Fig. 3. The results show that the off-diagonal pairing gives better overall control system performance.
off-diagonal
diagonal
27
Chapter 6
28
Chapter 6
Uncertainty in MIMO Systems

LQG Control: Optimal state feedback
J r = z T Qz + u T Ru dt
0
where z = Mx, Q = QT 0 and R = R T > 0
The optimal solution for any initial state is

u (t ) = K r x(t )
where
K r = R 1 B T X
Where X=XT 0 is the unique positive-semidefinite solution of the algebraic Riccati equation
AT X + XA XBR 1 B T X + M T QM = 0
29
Chapter 6

Robustness Properties
For an LQR-controlled system if the weight R is chosen to be diagonal, then Q y g g ,
S = I + K r (sI A) B
1
satisfies
(S ( j ) ) 1,
Nyquist plot in MIMO case
i = 0 and 0.5 k i < , i = 1, 2 , ... , m

k i = 1 and i 60 o , i = 1, 2 , ... , m
This was brought starkly to the attention of the control g y community by Doyle (1978 ) (in a paper entitled Guaranteed Margins for LQR Regulators with a very compact abstract which simply states There are none).
-1 1 -1
30
Chapter 6

Example 6-4: LQR design of a first order process. 2s + 3 G(s) = 2 s + 3s + 2 The cost function to be minimized is
Jr =
0
1 0 1 & x= x + 1u 0 2 y = [1 1]x
(y
+ Ru 2 dt
Let R = 0.0001
K r = R 1 B T X = [86.7008 - 75.3816]
( A bk ) = 7.1596 6.9828i
i = 0 and 0.5 k i < , i = 1, 2 , ... , m

( A bk ) stable for all 0
1 0.83 unstable for uncertainty b = or b = 1.19 1
31
Chapter 6

Example 6-5: Decoupling controller
G ( s) = 56 s 2 47 s 1 s 2 + 3s + 2 42 s 50 s + 2
The pre compensator approach may be extended by introducing a post compensator 1 0 7 8 7 8 s + 1 Gs ( s ) = Wsp ( s )G ( s )Ws ( s ) = Gd ( s ) G(s) = 6 7 2 6 7 0 s + 2 The overall controller is then h ll ll i h
K ( s ) = Ws ( s ) K s ( s )Wsp ( s )
7 8 k 0 7 8 k 0 K (s) = 0 k 6 7 = 0 k 6 7
We have good stability margin in both channel.

k Exercise 4 D i stability margin for different value of if K ( s ) = E i 4: Derive t bilit i f diff t l f 0 For k=1 so find the smallest that lead to instability. Repeat for k=2. 0 k +
32
Chapter 6

Type of uncertainty
Parametric (real) uncertainty. structured uncertainty uncertainty structured uncertainty
Model structure and order are known, but (some) pa a e e va ues a e u ce a . parameter values are uncertain.
G (s) = k s( s + a)
Dynamic (frequency-dependent) uncertainty or nonparametric uncertainty. unstructured uncertainty

There exists (some) erroneous or missing dynamics. Usually unmodeled dynamics is in high frequencies.
33
Chapter 6

Type of unstructured uncertainty
34
Chapter 6

Parametric uncertainty Nonparametric uncertainty
Example 6_6: Consider a plant with parametric uncertainty
Now let
1 G p ( s) = G0 ( s ) min p max ps +1
p = (1 r )
= ( min + max )
G0 ( s ) G0 ( s ) r s 1 G p ( s) = w2 ( s ) = = , w1 ( s ) = 1 1 + s r s 1 + s 1 w2 ( s )w1 ( s ) 1+ s
G p ( s ) = G ( s )(1 w2 ( s ) w1 ( s ) ) 1
Nonparametric uncertainty has more conservativeness.
35
1 2
rt =
( min max ) / 2
, <1
Chapter 6

Parametric uncertainty Nonparametric uncertainty
Example 6_7: Consider a plant with two parametric uncertainty
G p ( s) =
k e s 2 k , , 3 s +1
36
Chapter 6

G p ( s) = k e s 2 k , , 3 s +1
Consider additive uncertainty as:

G p ( s ) = G ( s ) + wA ( s ) ( s ); ( j ) 1,
Additive uncertainty can be represent By multiplicative one:

G p ( s ) = G ( s )(1 + wM ( s ) ( s ) ); ( j ) 1, w A ( j ) wM ( j ) = G ( j )
37
Chapter 6

System without uncertainty
z P = 11 P21
P w 12 P22 u
u = K
z = P + P K ( I P22 K ) 1 P21 w = Nw 11 12
N = Fl ( P, K )
System with uncertainty y y
N structure
Pull t P ll out uncertainty Suitable for robust performance analysis
38
Chapter 6

z P = 11 P21
P w 12 P22 u
u = K
z = P + P K ( I P22 K ) 1 P21 w = Nw 11 12
N = Fl ( P, K )
System with uncertainty N structure y y
y N11 z = N 21
N12 u N 22 w
u = y
z = N 22 + N 21 ( I N11 ) 1 N12 w = Fw
F = Fu ( N , )
39
Chapter 6
Robust Stability of Parametric Uncertain Systems
Robust stability in parametric uncertainty MIMO case Robust stability in parametric uncertainty
40
Chapter 6
Robust Stability of Unstructured Uncertain Systems

System without uncertainty System with uncertainty
N structure
Suitable for nominal performance analysis
z = P + P K ( I P22 K ) 1 P21 w = Nw 11 12
Suitable for robust performance analysis
z = N 22 + N 21 ( I N11 ) 1 N12 = Fw
General C t l G l Control Configuration
Checking robust stability?

Suitable for controller design
41
Chapter 6

System without uncertainty System with uncertainty
N structure
Suitable for nominal performance analysis Suitable for robust performance analysis
General Control Configuration
z = N 22 + N 21 ( I N11 ) 1 N12 = Fw w M structure

If there is no uncertainty we have nominal stability so:
N11, N12, N21 and N22 are stable Suitable for controller design Suitable for robust stability analysis42
M = N11
Chapter 6

M structure
NS: N is internally stable
Suitable for robust stability analysis
RS: NS and F=F u(N,) is stable for any ||||1
Theorem: RS for unstructured(full) perturbation. Assume that the nominal system M(s) is stable (NS) and that the perturbations (s) are stable. Then The M-structure is stable M < 1/ (M ( j)) < 1/ for all satisfying |||| The M-structure is stable
M
<1
(( j)) < 1/ (M ( j)) 43

M structure
Chapter 6

Gp = G + w2w1
System with additive uncertainty
y = Mu
M = w1K (I + GK)1 w2
Robust stability condition: In obust stab ty co d t o : the case of |||| 1
M
In the case of free
(K (I + GK)1 )< 1
= w1K (I + GK)1 w2
<1
44
M structure
Chapter 6

Gp = G(I + w2w1 )
System with multiplicative input uncertainty
y = Mu
M = w1K (I + GK)1G 2 Gw
Robust stability condition: In the case of |||| 1
M = w1K (I + GK)1Gw2
45
In the case of free
(K (I + GK)1G)< 1
<1

M structure
Chapter 6
Gp = (I + w2w1 )G
System with multiplicative output uncertainty t t t i t
y = Mu
M = w1GK ( I + GK ) 1 w2

M
In the case of free
(GK(I + GK)1 )< 1
= w1GK(I + GK)1 w2
46
<1
M structure
Chapter 6

Gp = G(I w2w1G)1
System with inverse additive uncertainty
y = Mu
M = w1G(I + KG)1 w2
M = w1G(I + KG)1 w2
<1
In the case of free
(G(I + KG)1 )< 1
47
M structure
Chapter 6

Gp = G(I w2w1 )1
System with inverse multiplicative input uncertainty
w2w1 < 1
y = Mu
M = w1 ( I + KG ) 1 w2

M = w1 (I + KG)1 w2
<1
In the case of free
((I + KG)1 )< 1 < 1
48
M structure
Chapter 6

Gp = (I w2w1 )1G
System with inverse multiplicative output uncertainty
w2w1 < 1
M = w1 ( I + GK ) 1 w2

M = w1 (I + GK)1 w2
<1
In the case of free
((I + GK)1 )< 1 < 1
49
M structure
Chapter 6

Uncertainty
Additive uncertainty Multiplicative input uncertainty Multiplicative output uncertainty Inverse additive uncertainty y
Perturbed Plant
M in M-structure
Gp = G + w2w1
M = w1 K ( I + GK ) 1 w2
M = w1K (I + GK)1Gw2 M = w1GK(I + GK)1 w2
1
Gp = G(I + w2w1 ) Gp = (I + w2w1)G

Gp = G(I w2w1G)
M = w1G ( I + KG ) 1 w2
Inverse multiplicative input uncertainty Gp = G(I w2w1 )1 Inverse multiplicative output uncertainty Gp = (I w2w1 )1G
M = w1 ( I + KG ) 1 w2 M = w1 ( I + GK ) 1 w2
50
M structure
Chapter 6

System with coprime factor uncertainty
G = Ml Nl Gp = (Ml + M )1( Nl + N ) = [ N M ]
K M = ( I + GK ) 1 M l1 I
Since there is no weight for uncertainty so the theorem is
RS : N
< 1/
51
Chapter 6

Remind Example 6-5: Decoupling controller
7 8 k 0 7 8 k 0 K (s) = = 6 7 0 k 6 7 0 k 0 k Exercise 4: Derive stability margin for different value of if K ( s ) = 0 k + For k=1 so find the smallest that lead to instability. 56 s 2 47 s 1 G ( s) = 2 s + 3s + 2 42 s 50 s + 2
Consider system with multiplicative input uncertainty
Gp = G(I + )
(K (I + GK)1G)< 1 () < 1/ (K (I + GK)1G)
52
M structure
Chapter 6
() < 1/ (K (I + GK)1G)
(K (I + GK)1G)= 24.2 db = 15.85
() < 1/ 15.85 = 0.0631 (
53
Chapter 6

Exercise 5: Consider following block diagram. We have both input and output uncertainty. a) Find the set of possible plants(Gp) ) p p ( b) Find M and derive robust stability condition. ( o
1, and i
1 )
Exercise 6: Assume we have derived the following detailed model:
Suppose we chose G(s)=3/(2s+1) with multiplicative uncertainty. Derive suitable scaling 54 Matrix.

Multivariable Lec6

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Multivariable Lec6

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Multivariable Control Systems

Ali Karimpour p Assistant Professor Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

p g y Introduction to Decoupling Control and Uncertainty

Topics to be covered include:

Gs (s) is diagonal at all frequencies.

For example with Gs = I we can choose Ws ( s ) = G 1 ( s )

Then by K s ( s ) = l ( s ) I we have K(s) = G -1(s)l(s) It usually refers to an inverse-based controller. y

This is usually obtained by choosing a constant pre compensator

BW frequency is a good selection 6 0 for

Pre and post compensators and the SVD controller

Decoupling by State Feedback

Decoupling by State Feedback

The transfer function matrix is

Decoupling by State Feedback

Ali Karimpour July 2012

Decoupling by State Feedback

Solution: S l i Transfer function of the system is f f i f h i

Ali Karimpour July 2012

Decoupling by State Feedback

1 0 1 0 0 u (t ) = E (Fx(t ) r (t ) ) = 6 11 5 x(t ) r (t ) 0 1 The decoupled system is 0 0 1 0 & x = ( A BE 1 F ) x + BE 1r = 6 11 6 x + 0 6 11 6 0 1 0 0 y = Cx = x 0 1 1

Exercise 1: Derive the corresponding decoupled transfer function matrix.

Property of Decoupling by State Feedback

5- Unstable transmission zero is the main limitation of method.

Decoupling by State Feedback

Diagonal controller (decentralized control)

Diagonal controller (decentralized control)

y1 = g11u1 + g12u2 y2 = g 21u1 + g 22u2

y1 = g11u1 + g12u2 0 = g 21u1 + g 22u2

Diagonal controller (decentralized control)

Solution: RGA of the system is

Diagonal controller (decentralized control)

Diagonal controller (decentralized control)

Diagonal controller (decentralized control)

Uncertainty in MIMO Systems

where z = Mx, Q = QT 0 and R = R T > 0

The optimal solution for any initial state is

Uncertainty in MIMO Systems

i = 0 and 0.5 k i < , i = 1, 2 , ... , m

Uncertainty in MIMO Systems

i = 0 and 0.5 k i < , i = 1, 2 , ... , m

Uncertainty in MIMO Systems

We have good stability margin in both channel.

Ali Karimpour July 2012

Uncertainty in MIMO Systems

Dynamic (frequency-dependent) uncertainty or nonparametric uncertainty. unstructured uncertainty

Uncertainty in MIMO Systems

Uncertainty in MIMO Systems

Example 6_6: Consider a plant with parametric uncertainty

Uncertainty in MIMO Systems

Example 6_7: Consider a plant with two parametric uncertainty

Uncertainty in MIMO Systems

Consider additive uncertainty as:

Additive uncertainty can be represent By multiplicative one:

Uncertainty in MIMO Systems

Ali Karimpour July 2012

Uncertainty in MIMO Systems

Robust Stability of Parametric Uncertain Systems

Robust Stability of Unstructured Uncertain Systems

Suitable for nominal performance analysis

Suitable for robust performance analysis

General C t l G l Control Configuration

Checking robust stability?

Robust Stability of Unstructured Uncertain Systems