Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 12

6.

7-/oo M i x e d Sensitivity

M a r k R . T u c k e r I a n d D a n i e l J. W a l k e r 2

6.1 Introduction
Classical approaches to feedback design have for many years provided reliable
methodologies for designing controllers that are robust, but these techniques
have not extended well to the multivariable case.
Modern techniques have subsequently looked at methods for designing mul-
tivariable robust controllers. 7-/00 control theory has been establishing itself
since the 1980's. The approach is based on minimising over frequency the peak
values of certain system transfer functions that can be chosen by the design
engineer to represent design objectives.
The 7-/o0 mixed sensitivity approach allows the design engineer to meet
stability and performance requirements in the presence of modelling errors,
uncertainty and perturbations arising from disturbances or noise. Input and
output signals are shaped with frequency dependent weights to meet robustness
and performance specifications.
This chapter is a tutorial chapter that will describe the theory of 7-/00 mixed
sensitivity methods. 7-/00 minimisation is described, followed by a mixed sen-
sitivity one degree-of-freedom single input and single output design method.
Next a two degree-of-freedom multivariable mixed sensitivity design is consid-
ered that includes disturbance inputs and a matching model.
7/0o techniques have been applied in the design chapters 21, 22, 23, 29, 30,
and 31 where mixed sensitivity as well as loop shaping and #-synthesis methods
have been used. Loop shaping and #-synthesis tutorials are given in chapters
7 and 8 respectively.
More extensive treatment of 7/00 theory and applications can be found in
[215, 159, 266, 96, 61].

6.2 7/0o M i n i m i s a t i o n
Consider the standard problem of Figure 6.1, where z are the output errors
or costs, r are the exogenous signals (reference inputs and disturbances), e are
the measurements and u are the controls.
IEngineering Department, University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester LE1 7RH,
United Kingdom. E-maih mrt@sun.engg.le.ac.ukTel: +44 116 252 2567/2874 Fax: +44 116
252 2619
2Engineering Department, University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester LE1 7RH,
United Kingdom. E-mail: wjd~leicester.ac.uk Tel: +44 116 252 2529 Fax: +44 116 252 2619

52
P

K
U -e

Figure 6.1: Standard Problem

According to the signals, the open loop system P, of 6.1, is given as

The closed loop relationship taken from r to z can be derived as

Tzr = P n + P n K ( I - P22K)-lp21 (6.2)


The standard 7-/oo optimisation problem is to find a stabilising controller
K which is proper and minimises the supremum (lowest upper bound) over
frequency of the maximum singular value of Tz~, the transfer function from the
reference inputs to the output errors or costs. That is, minimise

sup
II Tzr Iloo = a [Tzr(s)] (6.3)
Re(s) > 0

A stabilizing controller achieving the minimum closed loop norm, II Tzr IIoo =
3'opt, is said to be optimal. A stabilizing controller achieving a closed loop norm
7 > 7opt is said to be sub-optimal.
P can be represented in state space form as

[:] [A = C1 D n D12
c~ D21 D22
(6.4)

It is worth noting that three special cases of the standard plant P exist.
A 1-block problem is when D n and D21 are square and such a problem is
mathematically easier to solve than a 2-block problem where only D12 or D21
is square. A 4-block problem is when neither D n or D21 is square and such a
problem is the hardest to solve. Generally, all problems will require the solving
of two algebraic Riccati equations, referred to as the control and filter equations
respectively.
In fact the system of P needs to be constructed so that the following con-
ditions apply [92].

53
1. (A, B2, C2) is stabilisable and detectable. This is required for the exis-
tence of stabilising controllers.

2. D12 has full column rank and D21 has full row rank. This is sufficient to
ensure that the controller is proper.

. A -jwI B2 ] has full column rank for all w, enabling a stabilising


C1 D12 J
solutiontothefilterPdccatiequation. Also[ A - jC2
wI D21B1]has full
row rank for all w enabling a stabilising solution to the control Riccati
equation.

The 7-/00 optimisation can be solved using functions such as "hinfopt" which
iteratively searches for the optimum "ropt and using "hinf" which produces a
solution for a particular suboptimal % These functions are available in the
Matlab Robust Control Toolbox [45].
The controller produced will be of the same order as the system P used.
A high order controller can easily result, and so controller reduction is often
performed to eliminate unwanted or redundant states.
A more specific system structure is now considered.

6.3 Mixed Sensitivity - One Degree of Freedom

Figure 6.2: Closed Loop Feedback System

Figure 6.2 shows a simple closed loop feedback system with reference input r,
output y, output disturbance d, error signal e and control signal u. From this

y/d = e/r = (I + GK) -1 ~- So (6.5)


This is defined as the output sensitivity. To achieve small tracking error, good
transient behaviour and high bandwidth the output sensitivity needs to be
small at low frequencies which can be achieved by designing K to have high
gain at these frequencies. Also

u/r=-u/d = K ( I - b G K ) -1 = KSo (6.6)


= (I+KG) -1K=S~K (6.7)

54
where Si = ( I + K G ) -1 is defined as the input sensitivity. (Note that in a single
input single output system So = Si). To achieve robustness it is necessary to
accommodate disturbances and uncertainties and it is also required to limit
high frequency control effort. For this KSo must be designed to be small at
high frequencies which can be achieved by designing K to have low gain at
these frequencies. In order to meet the low and high frequency conditions, the
design will incorporate frequency dependent weights.

Figure 6.3: Closed Loop Feedback System with Weights

Figure 6.3 shows the system of Figure 6.2 with added weights.
From this it can be written

= 0 (6.8)
I -

which hence defines the augmented plant P. The transfer function Tz~ can
be obtained using 6.8 in 6.2 and so the 7/oo problem is to find a stabilising
controller that minimises

II T . Lo = W1S°
w2KSo oo (6.9)

If there is a bound on the 7/oo norm such that HT~ [[~ < 7 then

W1So
W2KSo < 7 (6.10)

where 7 > 0. This implies that

II W l & [Ioo < 7 II W2KSo II~ < 7 (6.11)

so it can be shown that

~[So] < 7/~[W~-1] O[KSo] < 7 / ~ [ W ( ~] (6.12)

Hence the frequency dependent weights Wt and W2 can be chosen to give the
bounds on the terms So and KSo required to achieve the required high and
low frequency gains. In fact W1 needs to be a low pass filter whilst W2 needs
to be a high pass filter.

55
Broadly speaking, W l and W2 determine the performance and robustness
properties respectively. For example, if the weights have been scaled so that
gamma is about one, it follows that W1-1 provides an upper bound on So. In
other words, W1 should be chosen to mirror the desired So, the latter being
determined largely by performance requirements. Likewise, W21 will provide
an upper bound on KS,,. This can be interpreted in terms of the closed loop
system's robustness to unstructured additive model error; the larger KSo at
any given complex frequency s = jw, the smaller the additive model error that
will be required to destabilize the system. (This follows from the small gain
theorem). Conversely, knowledge of the likely size of the additive model error
dictates the safe upper bound on KS,,. KS,, can also be interpreted in terms
of the gain of the closed loop system from the output disturbances to actuator
useage. It should also be noted that So can be interpreted as determining the
system's robustness to output inverse multiplicative perturbation. Thus the
larger So at a given frequency, the less robust the system is to output inverse
multiplicative perturbation at that frequency.
Given the state space representation of the plant and weights as

(6.13)
G= CG DG [ C1] DI ] W2 = L C: ] D2 J
then the state space form of P is constructed as

AG 0 0 I 0 BG
-B1CG A1 0 I B1 -BIDG
Zl 0 0 A2 0

-D1CG O0 C20
I O 1 0I
B2
-DIDG
D2
--DG
H (6.14)

Assuming that the construction of this augmented plant meets the requirements
given in Section 6.2, then the 7too minimisation can be performed to produce
a robustly stabilising controller. Note that a 2-block problem is being solved
as D21 is square.

6.4 Design Procedure


The following is a simple prescriptive procedure for designing a one degree-of-
freedom controller using mixed sensitivity.

1. Select the linearised plant model.

2. Select W1-1 and W2-1 to bound So and KSo.


3. Augment the plant with the weights W1 and W2 to form the augmented
plant P.

56
4. Synthesise a sub-optimal controller or an optimal controller where the
7-/oo norm is minimised. The smaller V indicating a more robust design.

5. System analysis.

The results can be tuned by adjustments to the weights and so iterations of


the design loop can be performed as required.
(Note: The pole-zero cancellation phenomenon can occur in this one degree-
of-freedom mixed sensitivity technique. Steps to prevent this possibly undesir-
able situation occurring can be found in [241]. The subsequent two degree-of-
freedom approach does not suffer from this phenomenon).

6.5 Design Example


The following plant model is considered to represent the transfer fllnction from
the input voltage to the angular position of a simple motor.

1
a - - - (6.15)
s(s + 1)

W1 is selected to be an integrator, this will result in integral action in


the controller enabling good tracking and small steady state errors. A true
integrator cannot be used as this would not conform to the requirements of
Section 6.2, so an approximate integrator is used. The gain of this weight
determines the closed loop bandwidth. The selected weight is

1
W1 - - - (6.16)
s + 10 - 6

Weight W2 is selected to be a high pass filter. W2 must be proper to meet


the rank considerations of the augmented plant as required in Section 6.2. The
gain and bandwidth of the weight are chosen to allow low frequency control
effort but limit high frequency control effort. The selected weight is

20s + 4
W2 - (6.17)
s+80
The augmented plant is constructed as in 6.14 and a sub-optimal controller
is synthesised realising a 7-/~ norm bound of 7 = 1.1Vopt = 1.2642. An optimal
controller can give better results over the whole frequency range, but this may
be achieved through high frequency or direct terms in the controller. A sub-
optimal controller is generated without these possible unwanted terms at a
slight cost to the robustness and performance.
The output sensitivity So frequency response of Figure 6.4 shows the desired
low gain over the operating bandwidth so rejecting low frequency disturbances.
At high frequencies the gain is unity and around the bandwidth there is a
peak in the response. The smaller this peak, the more robust the design. The
magnitude of this peak determines the smallest unstructured output inverse

57
multiplicative disturbance that will de-stabilise the system (see Appendix of
[242]). The function KSo is similarly analysed.
Figure 6.5 shows the frequency response the step response for the closed
loop system.
Iterations of the design cycle can now be performed to meet robustness and
performance specifications as required.

OF

-10~

-lO ~F

~_~o
-2G

-3O

-3S

-400-I 10" lO* 1o' 1o~ Io ~ io'= m -I 1o* Io' io 2 Io z


Vr~p,~ne¢ - (rl,e / i J ~ - [racvs]

Figure 6.4: (a) Output Sensitivity Frequency Response (b) Frequency Response
of K So

0.4

0.2

Ti~ ° [sl

Figure 6.5: Step Response of the Closed Loop System

6.6 Mixed Sensitivity - Two Degree of Freedom


So far it has been shown how a one degree-of-freedom controller can be pro-
duced using mixed sensitivity techniques. The method is now extended to a
two degree-of-freedom controller design. The system of Figure 6.6 shows a pos-
sible configuration, with reference input (ri), an output disturbance input (r2)

58
z2

r2

+
rl cl u + + z!

Figure 6.6: Two Degree of Freedom Closed Loop Feedback System

and two output costs (zl and z2). The system M is an ideal model to match
the closed loop system to. Controller K is to be designed.
K can be partitioned as K = [ K1 /(2 ], such that

u=[K1 K2] [ el]e2 (6.18)

where K1 is a pre-filter and K2 is a feedback controller. There are two methods


for generating the controller K. Firstly, /(2 could be synthesised to robustly
stabilise the loop against disturbances and uncertainty, and then K1 synthesised
to shape the closed loop to meet the performance requirements. Such a two
stage approach can offer greater flexibility and may produce better results, but
the method is complicated to implement needing a two step design procedure
and the resulting controllers are independent of each other and so overall are
of a high order. A simpler one stage method is to generate the controller K by
synthesising the feedback controller /(2 and pre-filter K1 together. Only one
synthesis is required, and the resulting controller is of a lower order as K1 and
K2 share the same state space. Here the one stage approach is considered.
For this system the standard problem of Figure 6.1 can be formed. The
system is represented by

z2 0 0 W2 rl
= I o o (6.1o)
ee 0 I G

which hence defines P. It can also be shown that

Tzr = [ WI(S°GK1- W2K2soW1S°] (6.20)

Once again the aim is to produce a stabilising controller K that minimises


the 7-/00 norm of Tzr. The four weighted functions to be minimised are the
difference between ideal and actual systems, the output sensitivity, the control
effort to the reference inputs and the control effort to the outputs.

59
W1 and W2 are frequency dependent weights selected as before. So using
this design enables robustness and performance criteria to be met incorporating
performance specifications in the matching model M. The state space form of
P can be formed using the definitions of G, W1 and W2 as given in 6.13 and
using the state space representation of the matching model

M=
[A IB ]
CM DM

The state space form of P is

Ag 0 0 0 0 0 Bg
B1Ca A1 0 -B1CM -B1DM B1 B1Dc
0 0 A2 0 0 0 B2
Zl 0 0 0 AM BM 0 0 rl
Z2
D1Cc C1 0 -D1CM - D I D M DI DIDo
el
0 0 c2 o 0 0
e2
0 0 0 0 I 0
cc o 0 0 0 I DG
(6.22)
Assuming that the construction of this augmented plant with plant model
and weights meets the requirements given in Section 6.2, then the 7-/oo minimi-
sation can be done to produce a robust stabilising controller. It is noted that
a 2-block problem is being solved as D21 is square.

6.7 Design Procedure


The procedure for designing a two degree-of-freedom controller using mixed
sensitivity follows a similar procedure to the one degree-of-freedom case (6.4).
The two degree-of-freedom case requires the additional selection of a desired
closed loop system response model.

6.8 Design Example


The following plant model has been selected.

=
1 i,s 5 0 ]
0.1(s + 5) 10(s + 1) (6.23)
G s(s + 1)(s + 5) s(s + 5) 0

The first and second outputs are to be matched to the desired model

M=
[~ 1 0 ] (6.24)
0 1

60
The cross coupling terms here are zero, so defining the requirement for the
closed loop system to be decoupled.
Next, the weights W1 and W2 are selected. These will be multivariable and
frequency dependent. Weight Wt is selected as an integrator to provide good
tracking and small steady state errors. The gain on this term will determine
the error bound on the difference between the actual and the ideal system, and
will also determine the bandwidth for output disturbance rejection.
2
Wt_l = W1_2 - s- -+' ' -10
''-~ (6.25)

The third output is the rate of the first output and will be fed back to
enhance the control and robustness. Low frequency activity of the signal is
required to enable the tracking of the first output. The weight selected is a
bandpass filter, selected to reject disturbances around the bandwidth frequency.

s (6.26)
W1-3= s2 + 2 s + l

Weight W2 is selected to be a high pass filter and must be proper to meet


the rank considerations of the augmented plant as required in Section 6.2. The
gain and bandwidth of the weight are chosen to allow low frequency control
effort and to minimise high frequency control effort.
20s+4 0 ]
W2 = s+so
0 20s+4 (6.27)
s+80
A suboptimal controller is now synthesised realising an 7too norm of 7 =
1.17opt = 0.5818.
Figure 6.7 shows the frequency response of the singular values of error
between the actual and the ideal responses. At low and high frequencies, the
error is small. Small error at low frequencies will give good matching to the
model resulting in small steady state errors. Around the bandwidth, the error is
largest, although it is less than unity. Reducing the error around the bandwidth
will improve the overshoot and rise times of the closed loop system. Above the
operating bandwidth the desired response is for low gain, which is achieved as
the error is small.
The output sensitivity So response is also shown in Figure 6.7, where there is
small gain at low frequency for the controlled channels, whilst the rate feedback
has unity gain over these frequencies. At high frequencies the gain is unity and
around the bandwidth there is peak in the response. The smaller this peak,
the more robust the design (as discussed in 6.5. FYmction K2So and SiK1 are
similarly analysed.
For the closed loop system Figure 6.8 shows the response of the first channel,
its rate and the ideal response of the matching model and the response of the
second channel and the ideal response of the matching model.
Iterations of the design cycle can now be performed to meet robustness and
performance specifications as required.

61
-2

--4C -lO

-IS

-2S

-l(x

-12~o. ....... '.1 ..... Ii ' 'l 'I i -~


IO IO ';0 IO IO 10 ';0" $~ 10' 10~ lo ~
Fmqu~cy- Irad/s] Fraqu~oy. [raClW]

Figure 6.7: (a) Frequency Responses of the Difference Between M and SoGK1
(b) Output Sensitivity Frequency Response

I
0.9

o,a

o.7
o,6 rd~d
O.g Oulp~ 2
~ O.S

OA 0.4

O.2

0'3
O 2I
0
0.1

-O2 0
I 2 3 1 5 6 T e g I0 I 2 3 4 s s 7
Time- I d ~rnJ - [,]

Figure 6.8: (a) Step Response to the First Input of the Closed Loop System
(b) Step Response to the Second Input of the Closed

6.9 Conclusions
This chapter has given a brief tutorial on 7/00 control theory and how it can
be applied in 7/00 mixed sensitivity one and two degree-of-freedom design pro-
cedures. The 7-/00 mixed sensitivity method lends itself well to systems which
are required to meet stability and performance requirements in the presence
of modelling errors, uncertainty and perturbations arising from disturbances
or noise. Uncertainty and disturbance can be explicitly incorporated into the
design and stability is guaranteed subject to bounded perturbations, although
robust performance is not. The frequency domain procedures are demonstrated
using simple examples. Weight selection can be made to account for model
uncertainty. If model uncertainty is unspecified, then the weight selection is
broadly defined by robustness and performance requirements. Additionally
in the two degree-of-freedom design, a model is incorporated that is directly
translated from the performance requirements that the closed loop system is

62
required to meet. Generally, controllers are produced by iterative design proce-
dures. The weights are selected and the robustness and performance analysed.
Large order controllers can sometimes be generated, but in practice it is usually
possible to achieve significant order reduction.

63