IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. AC-27, NO.

2% APWL

1982

295

Improved Direct Digital Control Algorithm for Microprocessor Implementation

TAKESHI TSUCHIYA,MEMBER, IEEE excited inverter, and state variable constraints due to the currentcapacity of thesemiconductor elements (mainly thyristors). In addition to these points, when the microprocessor is used as a controllerof the controlled object (the time constants of whch are very short compared to that of typical process control applications), the effect of the time to execute the control algorithm in a microprocessor onthecontrolperformancecannotbe neglected. If one designs the control system by neglecting this processing time, thecontrol system performancein this case never fails to become unsatisfactory. From the abovementioned point of view, the control algorithm which can treat the input and state variable constraints and the input delay time [6]simultaneously is essential when applying I. INTRODUCTION modern controltheory and the microprocessor to the power HISpaper describes atheoretical and experimental electronics field. The control algorithm which requires repeated computations or a long computation time, however, miattempt to apply modem control theory and the croprocessor tothe power electronics field. The power cannot be utilized because a reasonable sampling period electronics field is expected to be a strongaid in producing for the controlledobject is too short to process a time-consuming algorithm during the sampling period. electrical systems thatare energy efficient andmainteIn this paper,thecontrol algorithm suitablefor minance-free; for example, variable speed drives for ac mocroprocessor implementation is derived on the basis of an tors, commutatorless motors, regenerative brakes in electric improved optimal regulator theory, although the designed cars, rewinding machines inthepaperandrubberincontrol system is suboptimal. The design of anoptimal dustries, high-frequency and high-power inverters, etc. In control system is impossible due to the conditions stated order to apply modem control theory and the microabove. Using a popular microprocessor system, experiprocessor to the power electronics field, an improved optiments have been camed out and the effectiveness of this mal regulator technique is developed to improve the control system synthesis method has been proved. steady-state characteristics of the designed control system. Such an improvement results in the introductionof integral action.Improvements of the original optimal regulator 11. DESIGN METHOD technique by the introduction of integral action have been First, an improved design method based on the optimal investigated recently [ 11-[5]. The quadratic performance index in these papers includes the derivative of the real regulator theory is described. The steady-state errorsof the control system designed by this method are zero for precontrolinput vector. On theotherhand,thequadratic disturbances in performance index in this paper consistsof the error vector scribed polynomial desired signals and spite of variationsoftheparameters of thecontrolled and the real control input vector only. Such a definition seems to be reasonable for control problems with input object. Consider the following generalized original controlled variable constraints because the error system representationincludingthe real controlinput vector is essential object with an input delay time being equal to one samwhen the constraints imposed on input variables (which pling period. The sampling period T (seconds) will be occur in many control problems) are considered. In the omitted in the following equation: power electronics field, several physical constraints should y(k+l)=Ay(k)+G,v(k-l)+B,,dy(k) (1) be taken into account: input variable constraints due to the limitation of the power supply voltage or the limited vari- output vector; ation range of the controlling angle of the separately W(k ) = Cy( k ) + B,dw( k )
Manuscript received May 2. 1980;revised February 2, 1981 and June 16, 1981. Paper recommended by A. J. Laub, Past Chairman of the Computational Methods and Discrete Systems Committee. The author is with the Department of Electrical hgineering. Hokkaido University, Sapporo, 060, Japan.
Abstract-An improved optimal regulator control system slnthesis method has been developed in order to obtain good steady-statecharactern spite of variations of the parameistics for the designed control system i ters of thecontrolled object. This control system includesproportional action, averagedderivative action, andintegralaction.Severalphysical constraints, such as inputvariableconstraints, state variable constraints, and input delay times, are treated simultaneously. To reveal the effectivethe speed control system of a static Scherbius ness of the method, induction motor system was synthesized by thismethodandsatisfactory experimentalresultswereobtainedusingmicroprocessor system as the controller. In this experiment, the processing time in the microprocessor the inputvariable conmust be considered as an inputdelaytime;and straints due to the restricted range of the controlling angle of the cycloconverter must be taken into account.

error vector;

e(k)=R(k)-W(k)
0 1982 IEEE

00 18-9286/82/0400-0295SOO.75

296

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL. ALTOMATIC

NO. VOL. AC-27.

2, APRIL 1982

where
y( n X 1) is the statevector. V( m X 1) is the input vector. R( r X 1) is desired signal vector,

w(r X 1) is the output vector,

dw( q X 1) is the output disturbance vector, and dy( p X 1 ) is the state disturbance vector.

Each matrix has appropriate dimensions. The original controlled object represented by (1) is assumed to becontrollable and m = r is assumed for simplicity of discussion. (4).

ramp changes in the desired signal or disturbances equal to zero. the first error system uses the second difference formulation. The controller obtained includes double integral actions as well as the usual integral action and seems to beuseful for nonstep change desiredsignals or disturbances whichmayoccurinthe industrial field. T h s controller willbeemployedin the experiment stated in Section 111. The other error system is for another controller which only guarantees zero steady-state errors for step changesinthedesiredsignal or disturbances. The first error system can be derived as follows using second differences of the error vector e and W. etc. on the basis of

A new matrix M is introduced.

where

xl(k)-e(k-2),

x2(k)=Ae(k-1)~e(k-1)-e(k-2).
The matrix M is chosen such that the matrix nonsingular. The vector w( k ) is reconstructed in terms of the statevariable y ( k ) of the controlled object. Usually. the is chosen to be unity matrix or equivalent matrix matrix, if possible, as will be shown in Section 111. In that case, the elements of the vector W( k ) are equal to state variableswhich do not belong to the output variables. Equation (I) is transformed to (4) by using (2). where

x3( k ) = A2e( k)
=[e(k)-e(k-1)]-[e(k-l)-e(k-2)],
x , ( k ) r A 2 w ( k ) . and u ( k ) = A 2 v ( k )
(6)

[ ]:

and wherethe assumption that thedesiredsignalvector and disturbances are step and/or ramp signals was introduced. That is.
b2R(k)=01

A 2 d y ( k ) = 0 . and A'dw(k)=O.

Equation (5) is condensed to (7).

x,(k+l)=~,x,(k)+G,u(k).
and

(7)

I:;:
(4)

The elements of eachmatrix and eachvector of (7) are easily known by comparing (5) with (7). There is a very important relation between the error vector and the new state vectors in (6). e(k)=xl(k)+2x2(k)+x3(k).
(8)

In the following. two kinds of error systems are derived. In order to keep the steady-state errors for step and/or

In order to treat the tracking problem (which means causing the error vector e ( k ) to bezero at steady state for various desired signals). it is clear by observing (5) and (8) that it is necessary to regulatethe state variables x , ( k ) , x?( k ) . and x , ( k ) such that they become zero, which means that the original tracking problem is reduced to the regulator problem. The steady-state error can be zero, provided that the system shown by (5) can be controlled to be stable by the appropriate control input u( k ) . Moreover, it is clear that the steady-state errors are kept to be zero in spite of variations of the parameters of the controlled object as

TSUCHIYA: DIRECT DIGITAL CONTROL ALGORITHM

CONTROL

291

ERROR PROPORTIOSAL ACTION

IXPUT

>

INTEGRAL

ISTEGRAL
ACT I ON

ACTION

COWPENSATING ACTION FOR INPUT DEWY TIME

DERI.ATIVE ACTION STATE VARIABLES DERIVATIVE ACTION

Fig. 1. Configuration o f improved digital controller.

long as the system is controlled to be stable. Although the determination of the feedback matrix will be shown later, the control input vector u(k) can be represented by the following form.

u ( k ) = FX,X,(k)

=fl,e(k-2)+f2,[e(k-~)-e(k-2)]

+f3,[e(k)-2e(k-1)+e(k-2)]
+f4,[w(k)-2w(k-1)+w(k-2)]+fr,u(k-1).
(9)
Equation (10) is obtained by rearranging (9). or

~ ( k ) = f , , e ( k ) + ( - 2 f , , + f ~~) / kT T
k--1T

xu(k edl]
where

+ 1) = @,x,(

k ) G,u,( k )

xlu(k)=e(k x-, l, )( ,k ) r e ( k ) - e ( k - ~ ) , x 3 , ( k ) E w ( k ) - w ( k - 1) and u , ( k ) = v ( k ) - v ( k - 1) (12)

The terms related to the desired signals and disturbances were already omitted because these are assumed to be step functions. The error vector is represented as

The term f , , is zero, provided that there is no input delay. Using (10) and a relation, v(k) = u(k)+2v(k - 1)-v(k 2), the structure of the controller in this case is shown in Fig. 1. Next, let us consider the synthesis of the control system such that the output of the control system can follow only step changes in the desired signal or disturbances without steady-state error; whereas previously we have considered the case of step and/or ramp changes in desired signal or disturbances. In this case, the error system is derived using only first differences of the error vector e and the state vector w, while the second differences were needed in the previous case. The error systemis obtained as shown in
(11).

In a similar manner as before, the input vector is represented as follows:

298

IEEE TRANSACTIONS AC-27, ON VOL. CONTROL, AUTOMATIC

NO.

2, APRIL 1982

Equation (14) is similar in form to (10). The structure of this controller can be easily drawn similar to Fig. 1. As the other cases (such as the controlled object including multiple input delay times or control system synthesis with zero steady-state errors for any higherpolynomial than ramp desired signal or disturbances) are easily treated using the above technique, let us concentrate on the case of (5). One effective method for the determination of feedback gain is the optimal regulator technique. The performance index is defined for (5) as follows:

J,=

2
j=l

CU

{e'(j)e(j)+uT(j-l)Hfu(j-l)}.

(15)

0 0
-9

Equation (15) is transformed into (16) by using (S), meaning that the original tracking problem can be superficially transformed into the regulator problem whch can be more

12

0 0 -G,,
G72 0 0 0

0 0
2GT1 -2GT2

0 0
GT2

*22

0 0 0

I 0 0

0 I 0

j=l

(16) Matrix Q , follows from (15) and (8).

21
I

, I I : unity matrix.
0 0 0 0 0

Then the feedback matrix Fx,can beeasily obtained by minimizing this performance index utilizing the usual optimal regulator technique.

or

x , ( k + 1) = aCxc( k ) +Gcv( k ) .
The following performance index is defined for the system in (1 8) at every sampling instant k .
J,( k ) = x:( k

uo(k)=Fx,x,(k)= -B,Gr%r@,X,(k)

+ N ) P c x c (k + N )

s,(o) =0,

B,(o) = [G;s,(o)G,

+HA-'.

(17) where

are the steady-state solutions of the above equations. In a real control problem, the input variable constraints must be considered. For example. as stated in the next section, the digital control of the induction motor will be treated as a control problem with an input variable constraint due to the limitation of the controlling angle of the separately excited inverter. In such a case. the above control synthesis method is arranged as follows. As in ( 5 ) and (16), the fictitious input variable u ( k ) , which was derived by taking the second difference of the real input used. Treatment of the problem with vector v ( k ) . was input variable constraint is difficult. Then. using the relation ~ ( k ) = v ( k ) - 2 v ( k - l ) + v ( k - 2 ) . ( 5 ) can be rearranged as shown in (18).

sf and

E,

and the value of PC is chosen to be equal to the steady-state solution of the Riccati equation under the assumption that N is infinity. The reason will be explained in the following description. T h s performance indexis different from the previous performance index (16) and those used in [1]-[3], etc. A similar performance index to these cannot be defined because in this case the values of the input vector v do not necessarily converge to zero after infinite time, and a performance index with an infinite control interval has no

TSSUCHIYA: DIRECT DIGITAL CONTROL ALGORITHM

299 k+l
I

k
/ /

k+2

k+l+N k+2+N

.....
rf steps

c
I

Fig. 2. Explanation of performance index with finite time interval.

meaning. The performance index with a finite time interval must be defined as shown in (19). Tlus performance index, Jc(k), is defined at every sampling instant k . That is, J,(k) is defined at k , and J,(k 1) is defined at ( k + l)? etc. That is, the fictitious control interval considered at every sampling instant is always N steps. Observing Fig. 2 may be useful in understanding the definition of t h s performance index. Such a definition of the performance indexwas used whensynthesizing asuboptimal tracking control system utilizing future desired signals [SI, [9]. The value of N can be chosen arbitrarily because this value does not have any effect on the control system parameters. The reasonfor this is that the boundary conditions of discrete time Riccati equations, wluch are derived by solvingthe optimal control problem shown in (18) and (19), can be chosen to be equal to the steady-state solutions of the Riccati equations; therefore, the solutions of the Riccati equations always have constant values;however, the value of N mustbe chosen very large. The performance index (19) is different from the others on the following points. The performance index used in [ 11-[3] includes the derivative of the error vector or the real control input vector in order to introduce the integral action into the designed control system. On the other hand, the performance index(19) consists of the error vector and the real control input vector only. Such aperformance index can be suitable for the control problem with input variable constraints because the error system representation including the real control input vector [such as (18)] is needed when considering the input variable constraint. and the performance index must include the control input of the error system. If the performance index (16) consisting of the error vector and the derivative of the control input vector (which is used in [ 2 ] ) is defined, it is not possible to include hard constraints on control inputs through the performance index; although in [3] it is stated that the soft constraints can be imposed by suitable weightings in the H, matrix. Of course, when (19) is used, the integral action is introduced into the control system as well, which is shown in Fig. 1. Solving the optimal control problem shown in (18) and (1 9), the optimal control input can be obtained as

v(k)=FxCxc(k)= -B,Gc%c~c~,(k)
=f,cx,(~)+f2,x2(~)+f,,x,(~)+f,cx,(~) -tf,,v(k -2)+f,,v(k - 1). (20)

The boundary conditions for the Riccati equation are

SC(0) = P C

Bc(l)=[G~PcGc+Hc]-'.

(21)

It should benoticed that the Riccati equation in this case is the same as (17): but the boundary conditions must be changed to (21). Moreover, in order to treat the constraints necessarily imposed on the control input variable in Section 111, the performance index (19) is modified as in (22); although for simplicity of discussion, only one input variable with the following constraints is considered (the generalization is easy):
VminGuGVmax

J,(k)=xT(k-tN)P,x,(k+N) k +N + [e'(.MA+h',H(ho)
j=k

+ h:H(12,)+ h2,H(h2)] = x:( k + N)P,x,( k + N )

k

+
~

+ 5'
[ x m Q c x , ( j ) + h2,WhO)
k =

+ h f H ( h , ) + h:H(h,)]
where
ho = u ,
~ ( ' 0 )

(22)

h,= -u

+ Vmax$ and

h , =o -V ,

=s o :{

forh,<Oorh,<O > o1 for h,&h2 2 0

0, forhj20 K , > 0, for h , < 0

and i=1,2.

300
7HREE PX%SE FChER L I \ E S

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ALTOMATIC CONTROL. VOL. AC-27, NO.

2, APRIL 1982

SPEEL! DETECrOR

Fig. 3. StaticScherbius induction motor system andits speed control system configuration.

When the value of the control input variable o violates the value of either V , or V-, the penalty [represented by H ( h , ) or H ( h , ) ] imposed on the control input variable will increase tremendously due to very large value of K , . On the other hand, the two terms h:H(h,) and h : H ( h z ) have no effect on the value of the performance index, provided that the value of the control input variable u does not violate its limits. 111. APPLICATION TOTHE SYNTHESIS OF A SPEED CONTROL SYSTEM FOR AN INDUCTION MOTOR e SYSTEM To reveal the effectiveness of the method described. t h s method is applied to the synthesis of a speed control system for a static Scherbius induction motor system which has both an input variable constraint due to the restricted range of the controlling angle of the separatelyexcited inverter and an input delay time due to the processing time required to execute the control algorithm in a microprocessor employed as the controller. The system under consideration is shown in Fig. 3. The signal processing time in the microprocessor. as stated before, cannot be neglected when it is compared with the transient motion of the induction motor system (time constant of which was measured to be 0.41 s). If one designs the control system without considering the processing time. the response of the control system becomes unsatisfactory. A typical simulation result will be shown later. This processing time should be taken into account as an input delay time. In our experiment, t h s processing time (which is equal to one sampling period) is 20 ms. In this system, a cycloconverter consisting of 18 thyristors makes the induction motor speed change as desired. However. the range of the controlling angle is limited to within certain values in order to ensure normal commutation of the thyristors. This represents the input variable constraint.

A mathematical model for this induction motor system has been well established by many investigators [lo]-[13], and the system equations under consideration are written as follows on the basis of these papers.

+ -Au ( t
e

- T A ) +-dy2(r)

where

yI: normalized motor rotational angular frequency y,: normalized averaged rotor circuit direct current d,.,: normahzed motor load T ~ ~ mechanical . and electrical time constants of the controlled object q. A , d,,: system constants. In our experiment, these values are as follows: T, = 0.41 s, 0.101 s, A = 2.41, q=1.54, and d , , =1.0. In these system equations, T 4 represents the processing time required to execute the employed algorithm in a microprocessor and corresponds to the input delay time of the controlled object. Thesesystem equations represented in continuous form can be made discrete by using the usual manner with a sampling period T. since the system equations become simple linear equations by neglecting all the nonlinear terms q2y; and qy,y2. Neglecting these terms is valid because the magnitude of qy, is smaller than 0.2 at almost all operating conditions in this experimental setup. Then (23) is transformed into discrete form as shown (24), which corresponds to (1). Generally, in order to operate the control system with one microprocessor. it is necessary that theprocessingtime T 4 is equal to or smaller than one sampling period T. For the simplicity of discussion, TA is assumed to be equal to T. which is chosen to be 20 ms.

TSUCHIYA: DIRECT DIGITAL CONTROL ALGORITHM

301

Feedback matrix F , is calculated by same method as (20) and (21) for (25) and J,(k). 3) h 1 2 0 a n d h 2 < 0 Define another performanceindex as

Input variable constraints V , GuGV ,, which corresponds to the value between 30" and 90" for the controlling angle. According to the design routine stated in Section 11, the following error system is derived from (18).
1 0 0 1 1 0
0

and the control input is

0
1
-a21

0 0
-a12
a22

0 0
-gbll

0 0
2gbll

0 0 0 0

gbZl

-2gb21

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

1 0 0

or

u ( k ) = F,x(k)+ V-.
x(k+l)=iPx(k)+Gv(k).

(28)

Equations (25) and (22) constitute the optimal regulator problem. This problem, however,can only be solvedby time-consuming repeated computations [ 141 which cannot be executed by one microprocessor in a very short sampling period. Hence, this optimal regulator problem is transformed to the suboptimal control problem as follows inorderto make it possible to implement it with the microprocessor. 1) I z 1 2 0 a n d h 2 2 0 Define the performance index as

Jo(k)=xT(k+N)Px(k+N)
k

2 j=k

- ,V
{x'(j)ax(i)+K,,v2(j-1)}

andthecontrolinput which is optimal only duringthe interval satisfying h 2 0 and h 2 0 is obtained. v ( k )= F x ( k ) .

(26)

Feedback matrix F is calculated by the same method as (20) and (21) for (25) and Jo(k). 2) ho<O a n d h 2 2 0 Define another performanceindex as

Feedback matrix F, is calculated by same method as(20) and (21) for (25) and J,(k). In our experiment, the value of K, is chosen to be as large as IO5. System response for the value of K , larger than lo5 is almost the sameas thatfor lo5 because the value of input variable u ( k ) for the cases 2) and 3) hardly depends on the value of - F,x(k) or F,x(k), respectively, but depends on the value of V,, or Vmin. Commutation failure of the cycloconverter, therefore, could be avoided because the value of the input variable ~ ( kis )successfully restricted to within its limited values, V,, and Vhn. The flowchart of this control algorithm is shown in Fig. 4 and can be executed by one microprocessor in about 20 ms (includingthe conversion time of A/D and D/A converters). State variable y2(k ) corresponds to the equivalent direct current of the induction motor system. The signal, however, contains relatively many harmonicsdue to the switching phenomena of thyristors. Therefore, employing the filter in this circuit was necessary in order to eliminate the harmonics. The harmonics could be eliminated to the specified degree, but signal transmission delay was introduced. The signal could not be utilized directly as the state variable y 2 ( k )of this system. The following technique was thus used. The equation of the filter used can be represented by

J,(k)=x'(k+N)P,x(k+N)
k
T

j3(t)=urx(t>-bry2:,(t)
0

,I-

2 j=k

( x ' ( i ) ~ x ( i ) + K,r-

+ vmax12}y 2 ( k T ) ( t

and the control input is

~ ( k ) = -F,x(k)+V,,.

(27)

where y 3 ( t ) is the output of the filter. Although y2(t ) or or kT means present time and T issampling period) is calculated from the equation, $ 3 ( k T ) cannot be obtained because the time derivative of y , ( k T ) is not realizable in a practical experiment. Therefore, j 3 ( k T ) is approximated by

302

IEEE T U N S A C T I O N ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. AC-27, NO. 2, APRIL Averaged current

1982

AD conversion

Compute

va

FA:+?)
= fl 5 i k ) + f 2 x2(k) + f3 x3(k) + f4 x4(k)

f5 v(k-3)

+ f6 v(k-2) + f7 v(k-1)

I
I

Gate signals

Fig. 4. Flowchart of the control algorithm.

Then ~-l ? ( k T is ) calculated by the equation

y 3 ( k T ) - y3( k T

-1
-

1T )
(29)

The abovealgorithmwas adopted inthemicroprocessor program as shown in Fig. 4. The error signal e( k ) and the other state variable w( k ) . or y2(k j are measured at time k and the microprocessor immediately starts to compute the control input variable by means of the flowchart shown in Fig. 4. At time ( k 1) or a little bit before this time. the computed control input ~ ( k is )applied to the input circuit of the controlled object (the gate circuits of the thyristors). The program was written in Assembly language. The employedmicroprocessorsystem is the Intel 8080AmicroprocessorsystemshowninFig. 5 inthe outline. Wordlengths in the microprocessorwere 16 bits. In order to compare performance quality of the control system with a faster processor with the original processor. a high-speed hard logicmultiplier and accumulator elementwas connected to the original Intel 8080A microprocessor system.

Since in our algorithm it is necessary to calculate 9 multiplications and 7 accumulations. this element proved to be suitable. This augumented system can process the above algorithm in 2-3 ms, that is, the processing speed could be raised up to about 10 times that of the original system. The sampling period for this case was chosen to be 10 ms. The steady-state performance of this control system was the same as that of the previous case (sampling period is 20 ms). The rising time for this case must be shorter than that of the previous case because input delay time was half of the previous case. but the difference between these two was hardly recognized. Influencesof a faster or slower processor on the performance quality are not tremendous, provided that the control algorithm can be processed in 40 ms or less, which is smaller than c.ne-tenth of the time constant of the controlled object. which was shown in simulation studies. However. performance quality of control systemwith longer processing time than 50 ms deteriorates gradually. Fig. 6 depicts the control system configuration. Fig. 7 showsthesimulationresults. In this simulation (and esperimental studies) the control system has been synthesized such that the output of the control systemmayfollow a step and/or ramp change in the desired signal of disturbance without steady-state error. As might be expected.

TSUCHIYA: DIRECT DIGITAL CONTROL ALGORITHM

303
LSB

Sarnnl e H o l d

PPI

AD Converte ADC- t!Xl ZBGC

INPUT

PA7
I

A Port

1
82

(F4)

EOC -5V .--

+5V

NSB
AD S t a r t S i g n a l
A

C Port

AD S t a r tS i g n a l

C Port
I'L4

(to

EOC A

PBi

EOC B

B Port (F51

P
C

'

Analogue output

Fig. 5. A part of the microprocessor system used in this experiment.

the steady-state error of the control system is almost zero fora sinusoidal change (about 1/12 Hz) inthe desired signal as well as for a step change in the desired signal or disturbances.The value of thesteady-stateerrorfora sinusoidal change in the desired signal is in the order of 0.01 percent, and for a step change is in the order of 0.001 percent, which is small enough for practical operation. In Fig. 7 simulation resultsforthecontroller with the linearized plant model are also shown compared with the same results for the nonlinear plant model. The nonlinear terms, q 2 y i and qyIy,, in the state equations, (23): were neglected at the design stage and it is worthwhile to consider the effect of these on the control system performance. At steady state the value of y, (the current flowing through the rotor circuit of the induction motor) must be very small; thus, the effect on the steady-state performance is neghgible. On the other hand,in the transient state, the value of qy, may become large (within the assumed value of 0.2) during a few sampling periods after a fast and large change in the desired signal or disturbance (load).Such a circumstance is shown at some intervals in Fig. 7 where the desired signal changes from about 0.3 up to 0.7, although such a tremendous change in the desired signal is not likely to occurinpracticaloperation.The system outputforthe controller with the nonlinear plant model is slow to build up to the value of the desired signal ( = 0.7), whereas the system output for the controller with the linearized plant model is fast. The reason for this is that the term q2>); in the first equation of (23) tends to decrease the value of PI (derivative of the motor speed), causing the rate of rise of

the motor speed to decrease with the increase o f the value of y,. In addition, another nonlinear term qy,y, ( > 0) in the second equation of (23) tends to increase the value of j , , which results in the increase of the value of y, and in turn decreases the rate of rise of y , as stated above. The existence of these nonlinear terms, q2>)i and qyly2:in the model thus results in slow transient response compared with the linearized model. There is an extreme case where the system output cannot follow the desired signal at all, whch occurs after tremendous change in the desired signal and disturbance. Moreover, the output signal of the control system designed without giving consideration to the input delay time due to the processing time required to execute the suboptimal control algorithm ina microprocessor is shown. It should be noted that the control system is of no use at all, even though the time neglected is only 20 ms. From this point of view, a control system synthesis method which can deal with the input delay time is essential when designing a control system for a controlled object that has a short time constant (such as those in power electronics). Parallel operation of many microprocessors would be necessary if input delay time due to the processing time is not taken into consideration, which is not economically justifiable at this stage. Fig. 8 shows one experimental result. As might be expected theoretically, the steady-state error is almost zero, although the value of the steady-state error at 1395 r/min is about 1.5 r/min (it is in the order of 0.1 percent error) whch is worse than the simulation result stated previously. However, this value of the steady-state error will be im-

304

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOhIATICCONTROL, VOL. AC-27, KO. 2 , APRIL 1982

VO(k)

D D

GATE CIRCU 1T S

SPEED

k y

Y3(k)
~

SPEED DETECTOR

.AID

FILTER

<

Fig. 6. Configuration of the control system

---e

0.8

- - - - - Output of control system synthesized b y neglecting input - . . . . . System output for the controller , n i t h the linearized plant

Output of control system synthesized by considering input delay tlne delay time mdel

3
Y

p
c

0.4-.

4
c

0.3-.

LOAD TORQUE

e9
I

\
I

I
I

steps

so

100

150

200

Fig. 7. Simulation results

proved to within the order of 0.01 percent or 0.001 percent, provided that a rotary encoder isemployed to digitally detect the speed of the motor, as stated in [15]; while an analog detector was employed inour experiment. The transient response is fairlyfast compared to the results presented in [15], whichshow that the transient settling takes 5 s following a drastic change in either the motor speed or the speed setpoint (mechanical time constant of the employed motor intheir experiment is 0.04 s). Our experimental result shown in Fig. 8 is thus fairly satisfactory from the steady-state and the transient response point of view. The feedbackmatrices F, F , , and F, were obtained in terms of the parameter values of the linearized plant model. These values were obtained by off-line computation, and were rounded off to two decimal places due to the limited number of bits in a microprocessor. The values of A. f6. and f , . however, obviously deviated from the correct values

due to off-line computational errors and rounded-off errors. The reason is as follows. The control input variable is written in the following form (25):
u(k)=f,e(k-2)+f2[e(k-1)-e(k-2)] +f3[e(k)-2e(k-1)+e(k-2)]
+f[~2(k)-2~~(k-])+'z(k-2)]
+ A ~ ( k - 3 ) + f , ~ ( k - 2 ) + f , ~ ( k - l ) (30) .

At steady state, the following relations are satisfied:

e(k)=e(k-I)=e(k-2)

)?2(k)= Y d k - 1) = Y2?2(k -2) G ( k ) = G ( k - 1) = u ( k -2).

(31)

Substituting (31) into (30) and using a steady-state error of zero. (32) is obtained.

TSUCHIYA: DIRECT DIGITAL CONTROL ALGOMTHM

305

Fig. 8. An experimental result.

fs+&+f7=1.

(32)

IV.

CONCLUSION

Then the values of f5, &, and f 7 originally obtained which contain the errors must be changed such that these values will satisfy (32). Otherwise, the steady-state error given in (33) remains. (33) where e, and us are the steady-state values of the error and the control input variable, respectively. In our experiment these values were determined experimentally. Moreover, the transient response of the control system for the controller as originally designed was improved by selecting more suitable feedback parameters. The reasons for this are that the feedback parameters are obtained in terms of the system parameters of the linearized plant model neglecting all the nonlinear terms, and the measurement errors for system parameters such as T,,, T ~ , A , and q in (23) are very likely to occur in our experiment. These complicated causes require the feedback parameters originally obtainedtobe modified in order to improve the transient response. The modifications were experimentally determined since the effects of these inaccuracies on the feedback parameters were not calculated, except for the effect of the last three feedback parameters ( fs, f 6 , and f 7 ) on the steady-state response as shown in (32). The experimental results, especially thetransient response of the controller after it has been modified to improve the performance of the control system, were improved as shown in Fig. 8. This system has a transient response with almost no overshoot and a fairly fast settlingtime (about 1.O s); whle a slightly poorer response (about 15 percent overshoot and longer settling time of about 1.3 s) was obtained for the controller as originally designed. As for the steady-state response, the results for both cases are almost identical because the steady-state characteristics are determined by (32) which is satisfied in both cases.

An improved optimal regulator technique was developed with a steady-state error which was kept to be zero regardless of variations in the parametersof the controlled object. This control system includes proportional action, averaged derivative action, and integral action. Several physical constraints and the input delay time can be treated simultaneously. The methodwasused to synthesize the speed control system of an induction motor, and theeffectiveness of the method has been exemplified using the microprocessor. The speed of the current microprocessor is too slow to execute thepureoptimalcontrol algorithmwhichneeds repeated computations. In our experiment this difficulty was overcome by considering the input delay time for the processing time in the microprocessor and transforming the original optimal control problem into the suboptimal control problem. Although in the present experiment, one state variable was estimated by accessible signal, it is desirable to construct the control system with output variable only. This designmethodcanbeextended to the output feedback control system design method without using the observer.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author wishes to thank Prof. R. Tagawa, Hokkaido University, for his valuable advice. The author is favored to have had the assistance of E. Ishikawa and Y . Sano, who contributed their experimental skill and sustained effort in the execution of the experiment.
REFERENCES
[ l ] M. S. Calovic and N. M. Cuk. "Proportional integral derivative realization of optimal linear quadratic regulator." Proc. I E E . no. 1 1, pp. 1441-1443,1974.

[2]

M.

Tomizuka and D. E. Rosenthal. "On the optimal digital state

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL,

V O L . AC-27, NO. 2, APRIL 1982

vector feedback controller with integral and preview actions. Trans. ASMME, vol. 101, pp. 172-178. June 1979. R. T. Pullman and B. W.H o g . Discrete state space controller for a turbogenerator. Proc. IEE. vol. 126, no. 1. pp. 87-92. 1979. H. M. Smith and E. J. Dabison. Design of industrial regulator. Proc. IEE. vol. 119. no. 8. pp. 1210-1216. 1972. D. M. Auslander. Y.Takahashi, and Y.Tomizuka. Direct digital process control: Practice and algorithm for microprocessor applications, Proc. IEEE. vol. 66. no. 2, pp. 199-208, 1978. H. Kwakernaak and R. Sivan, Linear Oprin~al Conrrol S w e m . New York: Wiley-InteLscience. 1972. I. H. Suh and Z. Bien. Proportional minus delay controller. IEEE Trans. Auromar. Conrr., vol. AC-24. no. 2. pp. 370-372. 1979. M.Hayase and K. Ichkawa. Optimal servosystem utilizing future value of desired function (in Japanese). Truns. SOC.l m r r u m . Confr. 1 5 8 . .vol. 5. no. I. pp. 86-94. 1969. D. R. Gunewardama. M. Tomizuka. and D. M. Auslander. Application of optimal preview control to po\ver plant cooling system, Trurzs. , 4 S M E . J . DwunzicSvsr.. Meas. Conrr..vol. I 0 l . p ~ 162-171. . 1979. P. h. hliljanir. The through pass inverter and its application to the speed control of wound rotor induction motor, I E E E Trans. Power .4pp. $sf.. vol. PAS-87. no. I . pp. 234-239. 1968. W. Shepherd and J. Stanway. Slip power recovery in an induction motor by the use of a thyristor inverter. IEEE Trans. Ind. Gen. Appl.. VOI. IGA-5. pp. 74-82. 1969. A. La\< and R. J. Polge. Induction motor speed control with static inverter in the rotor. IEEE Truns. Power App. Svsr.. vol. PAS-85. pp. 76-84.1966. T. Knshnan and B. Ramaswami, Slip ring induction motor speed control using a thyristor inverter. Auromrica. vol. 1 I , pp. 419-424. 3975.

[I41 A. P. Sage and C. C. Whte, Optimal Colzrrol Sysrem. 2nd ed.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1977. [ 151 A. X . Lin and W. W . Koepsel. A microprocessor speed control system. I E E E Trans. Ind. Electron. Contr. Insrrum.. vol. IECI-24. no. 3 . pp. 241-247. 1977.

Takeshi Tsuchiya (81) was born in Hokkaido, Japan, on February 2. 1941. He received the B.E. and M.E. degrees i n electrical engineering and the Doctor of Engineering degree from Hokkaido University. Sapporo,Japan, in 1963,1965. and 1974. respectively. Upon graduation he joined the Department of Electrical Engneering. Hokkaido University. and at present he is an Associate Professor. He was engaged in research work in the field of cycloconverter-type commutatorless motors from I964 to 1967. optimal control theory and its application from 1968 to 1972. and development of improved control system synthesis method on the basis of optimal control theory from 1973 to 1977. He is currently worlung in the interdisciplinary area of optimal control theory and microprocessors and power elecuonics. Dr. Tsuchiya is a member of the Institute of Electrical Engineers of Japan. the Society of Instrument and Control Engineers (Japan). and the Japan Association of Automatic Control Engneers.

Hybrid Models for State Estimation in Unit-Train Control

JON H. DAVIS
Abstract --This paper constructs and analyzes certain unit-train models of a mixed lumped-distributedparametercharacter. These modelsallow construction of a filtering modelfor unit-train controlin which grade forces andcountervailinglocomotive forces are treated as disturbances,while center of mass velocity control is decoupled from a stress control loop. The results are illustrated with a representative calculation.

I. INTRODUCTION
HIS PAPER considers certain state estimation models arising in a distributed LQG treatment of a stress control problem arising in unit-train control. The physical problem which motivated this investigation has its origins in the railway transport of materials in long trains of identical cars. These trains are operated in
Manuscript received February 18. 1980; revised July 18. 1980 and March 30.1981. Paper recommended by L. G. Shaw,. Past Chairman of the Networks and Transportation Systems Committee. Theauthor is with the Department of Mathematics and Statistics. Queens University. Kingston. Ont.. Canada K7L 3N6.

mountainous terrain; the grade profiles and train length require the use of multiplelocomotives, some embedded within the length of the train. The train length is such that the train may span hills, making different sections of the train subject to rising and falling grades at the same time. In such situations, it is possible that stress levels may rise to a point at which coupler failure may occur, leading to the possibility of derailment. Ths has led to the investigation of control schemes to reduce coupler stress levels. A decentralized approach to the control problem was presented in [ 101. This reference and the models considered below are examples of brakeless control schemes, in that only locomotive forces are used for control. Some switchining strategies utilizing braking have been recently vestigated [ 111. In 111. a distributed model for the train-locomotive system was proposed, and a minimum mean-square stress controller was determined. A deterministic impelementation of the controller of [l] would require full state information; the model also includes no explicit component to account for grade-force effects. This model has the prop-

0018-9286/82/0400-0306soO.75 01982 IEEE