00 vote positif00 vote négatif

1 vues118 pagesA presentation on SEM

Oct 17, 2018

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

A presentation on SEM

© All Rights Reserved

1 vues

00 vote positif00 vote négatif

A presentation on SEM

© All Rights Reserved

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 118

representations

(SEM)

representations Modelling of

dynamical

systems

Properties

Discrete-time

O. Sename1 systems

State feedback

1 Gipsalab, control

CNRS-INPG, FRANCE

Olivier.Sename@inpg.fr Observer

www.lag.ensieg.inpg.fr/sename Integral Control

A polynomial

approach

Approche Etat pour la commande / IEG- SEM

Further in

discrete-time

control

Conclusion

State space

Outline representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

Introduction

dynamical

systems

Properties Properties

Discrete-time

Discrete-time systems systems

State feedback

State feedback control control

Observer

Observer Integral Control

A polynomial

Integral Control approach

Further in

A polynomial approach discrete-time

control

Conclusion

Further in discrete-time control

Conclusion

State space

References representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

Some interesting books: Modelling of

dynamical

◮ K.J. Astrom and B. Wittenmark, Computer-Controlled systems

systems

◮ R.C. Dorf and R.H. Bishop, Modern Control Systems, State feedback

control

Prentice Hall, USA, 2005.

Observer

◮ G.C. Goodwin, S.F. Graebe, and M.E. Salgado, Integral Control

Control System Design, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, A polynomial

approach

2001.

Further in

◮ discrete-time

control

◮ Conclusion

State space

representations

Objective of any control system: (SEM)

O.Sename

Nominal stability (NS): The system is stable with the

Introduction

nominal model (no model uncertainty)

Modelling of

Nominal Performance (NP): The system satisfies the dynamical

systems

performance specifications with the nominal Properties

model (no model uncertainty) Discrete-time

systems

Robust stability (RS): The system is stable for all State feedback

perturbed plants about the nominal model, up control

Integral Control

(including the real plant)

A polynomial

Robust performance (RP): The system satisfies the approach

discrete-time

plants about the nominal model, up to the control

real plant).

State space

representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

Recall of the "control design" process: Modelling of

dynamical

◮ Plant study and modelling systems

Properties

◮ Determination of sensors and actuators (measured

Discrete-time

and controlled outputs, control inputs) systems

control

◮ Control design (many methods) Observer

Integral Control

◮ Simulation tests

A polynomial

◮ Implementation, tests and validation approach

Further in

discrete-time

control

Conclusion

State space

representations

Different issues for modelling: (SEM)

dynamical

systems

◮ Determination of a transfer function reproducing the

Properties

input/ouput system behavior

Discrete-time

systems

Knowledge-based method:

State feedback

◮ Represent the system behavior using differential control

A polynomial

◮ Formulate a nonlinear state-space model, i.e. a matrix approach

discrete-time

control

◮ Determine the steady-state operating point about

Conclusion

which to linearize.

◮ Introduce deviation variables and linearize the model.

State space

representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Why state space equations ?

Introduction

◮ dynamical systems where physical equations can be

Modelling of

derived : electrical engineering, mechanical dynamical

systems

engineering, aerospace engineering, microsystems,

Properties

process plants .... Discrete-time

systems

◮ include physical parameters: easy to use when

State feedback

parameters are changed for design control

Integral Control

◮ Easy to extend to Multi-Input Multi-Output (MIMO) A polynomial

systems approach

Further in

◮ Advanced control design method are based on state discrete-time

control

space equations (reliable numerical optimisation tools)

Conclusion

State space

Some physical examples representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

Modelling of

dynamical

systems

Properties

Discrete-time

systems

State feedback

control

Observer

Integral Control

A polynomial

approach

Further in

discrete-time

control

Conclusion

State space

General dynamical system representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

Modelling of

dynamical

systems

systems

( State feedback

ẋ(t) = f ((x(t), u(t), t), x(0) = x0 control

(1) Observer

y(t) = g((x(t), u(t), t)

Integral Control

A polynomial

where f and g are non linear functions. approach

Further in

discrete-time

control

Conclusion

State space

Example: Inverted pendulum representations

(SEM)

It is described by: O.Sename

Introduction

Modelling of

dynamical

systems

Properties

Discrete-time

systems

State feedback

control

Observer

Integral Control

A polynomial

approach

Parameters:

Further in

discrete-time

control

Conclusion

State space

Example: Inverted pendulum representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

Modelling of

dynamical

The dynamical equations are as follows: systems

Properties

Discrete-time

systems

State feedback

control

Observer

Integral Control

A polynomial

approach

Further in

discrete-time

control

Conclusion

State space

Example: Lateral vehicle model representations

(SEM)

Introduction

Modelling of

dynamical

systems

Properties

Discrete-time

systems

State feedback

control

Observer

Integral Control

A polynomial

approach

Further in

discrete-time

control

Conclusion

State space

Definition of state space representations representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

A continuous-time LINEAR state space system is given Modelling of

as : ( dynamical

systems

ẋ (t) = A(x(t) + Bu(t), x(0) = x0

Properties

(2)

y(t) = Cx(t) + Du(t) Discrete-time

systems

control

variables), u(t) ∈ Rm the control input and y(t) ∈ Rp the Observer

measured output. A, B, C and D are real matrices of Integral Control

appropriate dimensions. x0 is the initial condition. A polynomial

approach

n is the order of the state space representation.

Further in

Matlab : ss(A,B,C,D) creates a SS object discrete-time

control

SYS representing a continuous-time

Conclusion

state-space model

State space

A first example: DC Motor representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Modelling of

dynamical

di

Ri + L + e = u e = Ke ω systems

dt Properties

dω

= −f ω + Γm Γm = K c i

Discrete-time

J systems

dt State feedback

control

System of 2 equations

of order

1 =⇒ 2 state variables. A Observer

ω

possible choice x = It gives: Integral Control

i A polynomial

approach

Further in

−f /J Kc /J 0 discrete-time

A= B= C= 0 1 control

−Ke /L −R/L 1/L

Conclusion

State space

Example : Wind turbine representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

Modelling of

dynamical

systems

Properties

Discrete-time

systems

State feedback

control

Observer

Integral Control

A polynomial

approach

Further in

discrete-time

control

Conclusion

A linearisation within 2 regions gives State space

representations

(SEM)

ẋ(t) = Ax(t) + Bu(t) + Ed (t) O.Sename

Modelling of

with dynamical

systems

γ −Cd Cd

α

−1 Properties

Irot Irot Irot 0 Irot

Discrete-time

A = Kd 0 −Kd , B = 0 , E = 0 , systems

Cd −1 Cd −1

Igen Igen Igen Igen 0 State feedback

control

Observer

and C = 0 0 1 Integral Control

x1 = rotor-speed x2 = drive-train torsion spring force, x3 = A polynomial

rotational generator speed approach

discrete-time

Irot : rotor rotational inertia, Igen : generator rotational inertia, Kd : control

angle, γ : partial derivative of rotor aerodynamic torque with

respect to rotor speed

State space

Examples: Suspension representations

(SEM)

Introduction

Modelling of

dynamical

systems

Properties

Discrete-time

systems

State feedback

control

Observer

Integral Control

A polynomial

approach

Further in

where x1 is the relative position, M1 the system mass, k1 discrete-time

control

the spring coefficient, u the force generated by the active

Conclusion

damper, and F1 is an external disturbance. Applying the

mechanical equations it leads:

M1 ẍ1 = −k1 x1 + u + F1 (3)

State space

Examples: Suspension cont. representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

Modelling of

x1 dynamical

The choice x = gives systems

ẋ1

Properties

Discrete-time

ẋ(t) = Ax(t) + Bu(t) + Ed (t) systems

control

Observer

where d = F1 , y = x1 with

Integral Control

A polynomial

0 1 0 approach

A= , B=E = , and C = 0 1

−k1 /M1 0 1/M1 Further in

discrete-time

control

Conclusion

State space

Exercice representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

Let the following quarter car model with active suspension. Modelling of

dynamical

Zcaisse and Zroue ) are the relative systems

position of the chassis and of the Properties

tire, Discrete-time

systems

mc (resp. mr ) the mass of the chas-

State feedback

sis (resp. of the tire), control

A polynomial

u the active damper force, approach

Zsol is the road profile. Further in

discrete-time

Choose some state variables and give a state space control

State space

representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

Modelling of

dynamical

systems

Properties

Discrete-time

Linearisation systems

State feedback

control

Observer

Integral Control

A polynomial

approach

Further in

discrete-time

control

Conclusion

State space

Equilibrium point representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

Modelling of

dynamical

systems

Properties

systems

State feedback

0 = f ((xeq (t), ueq (t), t) (4) control

Observer

For the pendulum, we can choose y = θ = f = 0. Integral Control

A polynomial

approach

Further in

discrete-time

control

Conclusion

State space

Linearisation Method (1) representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

The linearisation can be done around an equilibrium point

Introduction

or around a particular point.

Modelling of

dynamical

systems

Properties

Discrete-time

systems

State feedback

control

Observer

Integral Control

A polynomial

approach

Further in

discrete-time

control

Conclusion

State space

Linearisation Method (2) representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

Modelling of

dynamical

This leads to a linear state space representation of the systems

systems

( State feedback

x̃˙ (t) = Ax̃(t) + B ũ(t), control

(5) Observer

ỹ(t) = C x̃ (t) + D ũ(t) Integral Control

A polynomial

with A = ∂∂xf |x=xeq ,u=ueq , B = ∂∂uf |x=xeq ,u=ueq , approach

discrete-time

control

Conclusion

State space

Example: Inverted pendulum (2) representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

Modelling of

dynamical

Applying the linearisation method leads to : systems

Properties

Discrete-time

systems

State feedback

control

Observer

Integral Control

A polynomial

approach

Further in

discrete-time

control

Conclusion

State space

representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

Modelling of

dynamical

systems

Properties

systems

State feedback

Observer

Integral Control

A polynomial

approach

Further in

discrete-time

control

Conclusion

State space

Equivalence transfer function - state space representations

(SEM)

representation O.Sename

Introduction

Consider a linear system given by:

Modelling of

dynamical

ẋ(t) = Ax(t) + Bu(t), x(0) = x0 systems

(6)

y(t) = Cx(t) + Du(t) Properties

Discrete-time

systems

Using the Laplace transform (and assuming zero initial

State feedback

condition x0 = 0), (6) becomes: control

Observer

A polynomial

approach

Then the transfer function matrix of system (6) is given by

Further in

discrete-time

N(s) control

G(s) = C(sIn − A)−1 B + D = (7) Conclusion

D(s)

associated transfer matrix. Equivalent to tf(N,D)

State space

Conversion TF to SS representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Simple numerator Modelling of

dynamical

systems

y 1

= G(s) = 3 s

Properties

u s + a1 2 + a2 s + a3 Discrete-time

systems

control

y b s2 + b s + b3 N(s) Observer

= G(s) = 3 1 s 2 = Integral Control

u s + a12 + a2 s + a3 D(s)

A polynomial

approach

Numerator equal to denominator order Further in

discrete-time

control

y b0 s3 + b1 s2 + b2 s + b3 N(s)

= G(s) = = Conclusion

u s3 + as12 + a2 s + a3 D(s)

State space

representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

Modelling of

dynamical

systems

Properties

Discrete-time

State feedback

control

Observer

Integral Control

A polynomial

approach

Further in

discrete-time

control

Conclusion

State space

Canonical forms representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

canonical

form Modelling of

0 1 0 ... 0 0 dynamical

systems

0 0 1 0 ... ..

. Properties

.. .. .. . . ..

A= . . . Discrete-time

. . . , B = .. and

systems

.. State feedback

0 . 0 1 0 control

−a0 −a1 . . . . . . −an−1 1 Observer

C= c0 c1 ... cn−1 . Integral Control

approach

Further in

c0 + c1 s + . . . + cn−1 sn−1 discrete-time

G(s) = control

a0 + a1 s + . . . + an−1 sn−1 + sn Conclusion

State space

Modal form representations

(SEM)

Let us consider a transfer funtion as: O.Sename

b1 b2 bn

G(s) = + + ... + Introduction

s − a1 s − a2 s − an Modelling of

dynamical

systems

◮ Define a set of transfer functions:

Properties

Xi (s) bi

= ⇒ ẋi = ai xi bi ui Discrete-time

U(s) s − ai systems

State feedback

◮ This gives control

Observer

ẋ(t) = Ax(t) + Bu(t), x(0) = x0 Integral Control

(8)

y(t) = Cx(t) + Du(t) A polynomial

approach

a1 0 . . . 0 b1 Further in

discrete-time

.. b2 control

0 a2 0 .

with A = , B =

.. and Conclusion

0 . .

.. .. 0 .

0 . . . 0 an bn

C= 1 1 1 1 .

State space

representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

Modelling of

dynamical

systems

Properties

systems

State feedback

Observer

Integral Control

A polynomial

approach

Further in

discrete-time

control

Conclusion

State space

Solution of state space equations - continuous representations

(SEM)

case O.Sename

Introduction

Modelling of

dynamical

The state x(t), solution of ẋ(t) = Ax(t), with initial systems

Properties

condition x(0) = x0 is given by

Discrete-time

systems

At

x(t) = e x(0) (9) State feedback

control

A polynomial

1. Inverse Laplace transform of (sIn − A)−1 : approach

Further in

2. Diagonalisation of A discrete-time

control

3. Cayley-Hamilton method Conclusion

State space

Complete state solution representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

dynamical

systems

Z t

x(t) = At

e x(0) + eA(t− τ ) Bu(τ )d τ (10) Properties

|0

| {z } Discrete-time

{z } systems

free response

forced response State feedback

control

Integral Control

Simulation of state space systems A polynomial

approach

Use lsim.

Further in

Example: discrete-time

control

t = 0:0.01:5; u = sin(t); lsim(sys,u,t)

Conclusion

State space

representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

Modelling of

dynamical

systems

Properties

Discrete-time

State feedback

control

Observer

Integral Control

A polynomial

approach

Further in

discrete-time

control

Conclusion

State space

Non unicity representations

(SEM)

Given a transfer function, there exists an infinity of state O.Sename

Introduction

behavior). Let Modelling of

dynamical

ẋ(t) = Ax(t) + Bu(t), systems

(11)

y(t) = Cx(t) + Du(t) Properties

Discrete-time

systems

State feedback

consider the change of variables x = Tz (T being an control

A polynomial

T ż(t) = ATz(t) + Bu(t) (12) approach

Further in

y(t) = CTz(t) + Du(t) (13) discrete-time

control

Hence Conclusion

y(t) = CTz(t) + Du(t) (15)

State space

representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Modelling of

function of the previous system is: dynamical

systems

−1 −1 −1 Discrete-time

= C T (sIn − T AT ) T B +D (17) systems

State feedback

(18) control

Observer

Using In = T −1 T , we get Integral Control

A polynomial

G̃(s) = C T T −1 (sIn − A)−1 T T −1 B + D = G(s) (19) approach

Further in

discrete-time

control

Conclusion

State space

representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

Modelling of

dynamical

systems

Properties

Discrete-time

Stability systems

State feedback

control

Observer

Integral Control

A polynomial

approach

Further in

discrete-time

control

Conclusion

State space

Stability representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Definition Introduction

An equilibrium point xeq is stable if, for all ρ > 0, there Modelling of

dynamical

exists a η > 0 such that: systems

Properties

systems

State feedback

control

Definition Observer

approach

Further in

kx(0) − xeq k < η =⇒ x(t) → xeq , when t → ∞ discrete-time

control

Conclusion

These notions are equivalent for linear systems (not for

non linear ones).

State space

Stability Analysis representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

dynamical

through the characteristic equation det(sIn − A) = 0. systems

The system poles are then the eigenvalues of the matrix A. Properties

systems

control

A system ẋ(t) = Ax(t), with initial condition x(0) = x0 , is Observer

stable if Re(λi ) < 0, ∀i, where λi , ∀i, are the eigenvalues of Integral Control

A. A polynomial

approach

Using Matlab, if SYS is an SS object then pole(SYS) Further in

discrete-time

computes the poles P of the LTI model SYS. It is control

equivalent to compute eig(A). Conclusion

State space

Stability Analysis - Lyapunov representations

(SEM)

It is the basis of all extension of stability for non linear Modelling of

systems, time-delay systems, time-varying systems ... dynamical

systems

Theorem Properties

systems

asymoptotically stable at x = 0 if and only if there exist State feedback

some matrices P = P T > 0 and Q > 0 such that: control

Observer

T

A P + PA = −Q (20) Integral Control

A polynomial

approach

see lyap in MATLAB. Further in

Proof: The Lyapunov theory says that a linear system is discrete-time

control

stable if there exists a continuous function V (x) s.t.: Conclusion

dV

V (x) > 0 with V (0) = 0 and V̇ (x) = ≥0

dx

A possible Lyapunov function for the above system is :

State space

About zeros representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

dynamical

◮ Need to develop a similar way of defining/computing systems

Properties

them using a state space model.

Discrete-time

◮ Zero: is a generalized frequency α for which the systems

control

exactly zero output y(t) = 0. Observer

◮ The zeros are found by solving: Integral Control

A polynomial

A − λ In B approach

=0 (21) Further in

C D discrete-time

control

Conclusion

In Matlab use zero

s+3

Example: find the zero of : s2+5s+2

State space

representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

Modelling of

dynamical

systems

Properties

Discrete-time

Controllability systems

State feedback

control

Observer

Integral Control

A polynomial

approach

Further in

discrete-time

control

Conclusion

State space

Controllability representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

Modelling of

dynamical

systems

Controllability refers to the ability of controlling a Properties

state-space model using state feedback. Discrete-time

systems

Definition State feedback

control

Given two states x0 and x1 , the system (6) is controllable if

Observer

there exist t1 > 0 and a piecewise-continuous control input

Integral Control

u(t), t ∈ [0, t1 ], such that x(t) takes the values x0 for t = 0 A polynomial

and x1 for t = t1 . approach

Further in

discrete-time

control

Conclusion

State space

Controllability cont. representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

Modelling of

dynamical

Proposition systems

systems

and only if rank(C ) = n. State feedback

If the system is single-input single output (SISO), it is control

Integral Control

Using Matlab, if SYS is an SS object then crtb(SYS) A polynomial

approach

returns the controllability matrix of the state-space model

Further in

SYS with realization (A,B,C,D). This is equivalent to discrete-time

control

ctrb(sys.a,sys.b)

Conclusion

State space

Exercices representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

Modelling of

dynamical

systems

Properties

Discrete-time

systems

Test the controllability of the previous examples: DC motor,

State feedback

suspension, inverted pendulum. control

Observer

Integral Control

A polynomial

approach

Further in

discrete-time

control

Conclusion

State space

representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

Modelling of

dynamical

systems

Properties

Discrete-time

Observability systems

State feedback

control

Observer

Integral Control

A polynomial

approach

Further in

discrete-time

control

Conclusion

State space

Observability representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

Modelling of

Observability refers to the ability to estimate a state dynamical

systems

variable.

Properties

Definition Discrete-time

systems

A linear system (2) is completely observable if, given the State feedback

control and the output over the interval t0 ≤ t ≤ T , one can control

Integral Control

It is equivalent to characterize the non-observability as :

A polynomial

A state x(t) is not observable if the corresponding output approach

discrete-time

y(t) = ẏ(t) = ÿ (t) = . . . = 0 control

Conclusion

State space

Where does observability come from ? representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

dynamical

systems

ẋ = −x + u Properties

Discrete-time

y = 2x systems

State feedback

control

and

Observer

−1 0 1 Integral Control

ẋ = x+ u

0 −2 1 A polynomial

approach

Further in

y = 2 0 x discrete-time

control

Conclusion

State space

Observability cont. representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

Proposition Modelling of

dynamical

C systems

CA

Properties

The observability matrix is defined by O = .. . Discrete-time

. systems

control

Then system (6) is observable if and only if rank(O) = n.

Observer

If the system is single-input single output (SISO), it is Integral Control

equivalent to det(O) 6= 0. A polynomial

approach

Using Matlab, if SYS is an SS object then obsv(SYS) Further in

returns the observability matrix of the state-space model discrete-time

control

SYS with realization (A,B,C,D). This is equivalent to Conclusion

OBSV(sys.a,sys.c).

State space

Exercices representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

Modelling of

dynamical

systems

Properties

systems

suspension, inverted pendulum. State feedback

control

Analysis of different cases, according to the considered

Observer

number of sensors.

Integral Control

A polynomial

approach

Further in

discrete-time

control

Conclusion

State space

representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

Modelling of

dynamical

systems

Properties

Discrete-time

Minimality systems

State feedback

control

Observer

Integral Control

A polynomial

approach

Further in

discrete-time

control

Conclusion

State space

Minimality representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

Modelling of

dynamical

systems

Definition Properties

A state space representation of a linear system (2) of order Discrete-time

systems

n is said to be minimal if it is controllable and observable.

State feedback

In this case, the corresponding transfer function G(s) is of control

Observer

minimal order n, i.e is irreducible (no cancellation of poles

Integral Control

and zeros).

A polynomial

When the transfer function is not of minimal order, there approach

discrete-time

control

Conclusion

State space

representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

Modelling of

dynamical

systems

Properties

Discrete-time

State feedback

control

Observer

Integral Control

A polynomial

approach

Further in

discrete-time

control

Conclusion

State space

Kalman decomposition representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

Modelling of

dynamical

systems

Properties

When the linear system Discrete-time

(2) is not completely systems

control

able, it can be decom- Observer

posed as shown. Use Integral Control

ctrbf and obsvf in A polynomial

approach

Matlab.

Further in

discrete-time

control

Conclusion

State space

Toward digital control representations

(SEM)

as: Modelling of

dynamical

systems

Properties

Discrete-time

systems

State feedback

control

Observer

Integral Control

A polynomial

approach

This requires the use of the discrete theory. Further in

m (Sampling theory + Z-Transform) m discrete-time

control

Conclusion

State space

representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

Modelling of

dynamical

systems

Properties

Discrete-time

Z-Transform systems

State feedback

control

Observer

Integral Control

A polynomial

approach

Further in

discrete-time

control

Conclusion

State space

Definitions representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Mathematical definition

Because the output of the ideal sampler, x ∗ (t), is a series Introduction

Modelling of

of impulses with values x(kTe ), we have: dynamical

systems

∞

∑ x(kTe )δ (t − kTe )

Properties

x ∗ (t) = Discrete-time

k =0 systems

State feedback

by using the Laplace transform, control

Observer

∞

∑ x(kTe )e−ksT

Integral Control

L [x ∗ (t)] = e

A polynomial

k =0 approach

Further in

Noting z = esTe , we can derive the so called Z-Transform discrete-time

control

∞ Conclusion

k =0

State space

Properties representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Definition Introduction

∞ Modelling of

X (z) = Z [x(k)] = ∑ x(k)z −k dynamical

systems

k =0 Properties

Discrete-time

Properties systems

State feedback

Z [α x(k) + β y(k)] = α X (z) + β Y (z) control

Observer

Z [x(k − n)] = z −n Z [x(k)] Integral Control

d A polynomial

Z [kx(k)] = −z Z [x(k)] approach

dz

Further in

Z [x(k) ∗ y(k)] = X (z).Y (z) discrete-time

control

lim x(k) = lim (z − 1)X (z) Conclusion

k →∞ 1→z −1

State space

Exercise representations

(SEM)

Determine the Z-Transform of the step function (1) and of O.Sename

the ramp function (2)

Introduction

dynamical

= 0 if k < 0 = 0 if k < 0 systems

Properties

Discrete-time

systems

State feedback

control

Observer

Integral Control

A polynomial

approach

Further in

discrete-time

control

Conclusion

State space

Exercise representations

(SEM)

Determine the Z-Transform of the step function (1) and of O.Sename

the ramp function (2)

Introduction

dynamical

= 0 if k < 0 = 0 if k < 0 systems

Properties

Discrete-time

Solution systems

control

Observer

1 z

Xstep (z) = 1 + z −1 + z −2 + · · · = = Integral Control

1 − z −1 z − 1 A polynomial

approach

2) Ramp (note that xramp (k) = kxstep (k)) Further in

discrete-time

control

d z

Xramp (z) = −z Conclusion

dz z − 1

z

=

(z − 1)2

State space

Zero order holder representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

A sampler is a switch that close every Te seconds. Modelling of

dynamical

A Zero order holder holds the signal x for Te seconds to systems

get h as: Properties

systems

State feedback

control

Observer

Integral Control

A polynomial

approach

Further in

discrete-time

control

Conclusion

State space

Zero order holder (cont’d) representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

dynamical

The transfer function of the zero-order holder is given by: systems

Properties

1 e−sTe Discrete-time

GBOZ (s) = − systems

s s

State feedback

1−e e−sT control

=

s Observer

Integral Control

A polynomial

approach

Influence of the D/A and A/D

Further in

Note that the precision is also limited by the available discrete-time

control

precision of the converters (either A/D or D/A).

Conclusion

This error is also called the amplitude quantization error.

State space

Representation of the discrete linear systems representations

(SEM)

∞ Introduction

y(k) = ∑ h(k − n)u(n) Modelling of

dynamical

n=0

systems

Discrete-time

systems

Y (z) = Z [h(k)]U(z) = H(z)U(z) State feedback

control

Observer

b0 + b1 z + · · · + bm z m Y

H(z) = n

= Integral Control

a0 + a1 z + · · · + an z U A polynomial

approach

where n (≥ m) is the order of the system Further in

discrete-time

Corresponding difference equation: control

Conclusion

1

y(k) = b0 u(k − n) + b1u(k − n + 1) + · · · + bm u(k − n + m)

an

− a0 y(k − n) − a2y(k − n + 1) − · · · − an−1y(k − 1)

State space

Some useful transformations representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

x (t) X (s) X (z)

δ (t) 1 1 Introduction

dynamical

1 z systems

u(t) s z−1

1 zTe Properties

t s2 (z−1)2

Discrete-time

e−at 1

s+a

z

z−e−aTe

systems

z(1−e−aTe )

1 − e−at 1

s(s+a) (z−1)(z−e−aTe )

State feedback

control

ω zsin(ω Te )

sin(ω t) s 2 +ω 2 z 2 −2zcos(ω Te )+1

Observer

cos(ω t) s

s 2 +ω 2 z 2 −2zcos(ω Te )+1 A polynomial

approach

Further in

Exercise discrete-time

control

Discretize (sampling time Te ) the system described by the

Conclusion

Laplace function (using a Zero order holder):

Y (s) 1

H(s) = =

U(s) s(s + 1)

State space

Exercise representations

(SEM)

Discretize the system described by the Laplace function O.Sename

(using a Zero order holder):

Introduction

Y (s) 1 Modelling of

H(s) = = dynamical

U(s) s(s + 1) systems

Properties

Adding the Zero order holder leads to: Discrete-time

systems

GBOZ (s)H(s) = control

s s(s + 1) Observer

=

s2 (s + 1) A polynomial

approach

1 1 1

= (1 − e−sTe ) 2 − +

Further in

discrete-time

s s s+1 control

Conclusion

hence

1 1 1

Z [GBOZ (s)H(s)] = (1 − z −1 )Z 2

− +

s s s+1

State space

Exercise (cont’d) representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

1 1 1 Introduction

Z [GBOZ (s)H(s)] = (1 − z −1 )Z 2

− +

s s s+1 Modelling of

dynamical

zT e z z systems

= (1 − z −1 ) 2

− + −T Properties

(z − 1) z −1 z −e e

Discrete-time

(ze−Te − z + zTe ) + (1 − e−Te − Te e−Te ) systems

=

(z − 1)(z − e−Te ) State feedback

control

Observer

if Te = 1, we have Integral Control

A polynomial

(ze−Te − z + zTe ) + (1 − e−Te − T e e−Te ) approach

Z [GBOZ (s)H(s)] =

(z − 1)(z − e−Te ) Further in

discrete-time

ze−1 + 1 − 2e−1 control

= Conclusion

(z − 1)(z − e−1 )

b1 z + b0

= 2

z + a1 z + a0

State space

Exercise (cont’d) representations

(SEM)

Y (z) b1 z+b0

U(z) = z 2 +a1 z+a0

Introduction

b1 z+b0 Modelling of

⇔ Y (z) = z 2 +a1 z+a0

U(z) dynamical

systems

⇔ 2

Y (z)(z + a1 z + a0 ) = (b1 z + b0 )U(z) Properties

⇔ y(n + 2) + a1y(n + 1) + a0y(n) = b1 u(n + 1) + b0u(n) Discrete-time

systems

With an unit feedback, the closed loop function is given by: State feedback

control

G(z)

Fcl (z) = Observer

1 + G(z) Integral Control

A polynomial

approach

Further in

discrete-time

control

Conclusion

State space

representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

Modelling of

dynamical

systems

Properties

systems

State feedback

Stability control

Observer

Integral Control

A polynomial

approach

Further in

discrete-time

control

Conclusion

State space

Equivalence {s} ↔ {z} representations

(SEM)

dynamical

systems

z = esTe Properties

Discrete-time

systems

State feedback

the same pole in Z. control

Observer

Stability domain Integral Control

A polynomial

approach

Further in

discrete-time

control

Conclusion

State space

Approximations representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

Forward difference (Rectangle inferior) Modelling of

dynamical

systems

Properties

z −1 Discrete-time

s= systems

Te

State feedback

control

Observer

Backward difference (Rectangle superior) Integral Control

A polynomial

approach

Further in

z −1 discrete-time

s= control

zTe Conclusion

State space

Approximations (cont’d) representations

(SEM)

Introduction

Modelling of

dynamical

2 z −1 systems

s=

Te z + 1 Properties

Discrete-time

systems

State feedback

control

Observer

Integral Control

A polynomial

approach

Further in

discrete-time

control

Conclusion

State space

Systems definition representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

Modelling of

dynamical

A discrete-time state space system is as follows: systems

Properties

(

x((k + 1)h) = Ad x(kh) + Bd u(kh), x(0) = x0 Discrete-time

systems

(22)

y(kh) = Cd x(kh) + Dd u(kh) State feedback

control

Observer

where h is the sampling period.

Integral Control

Matlab : ss(Ad ,Bd ,Cd ,Dd ,h) creates a SS A polynomial

object SYS representing a discrete-time approach

discrete-time

control

Conclusion

State space

Relation with transfer function representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

Modelling of

dynamical

For discrete-time systems, systems

Properties

x((k + 1)h) = Ad x(kh) + Bd u(kh), x(0) = x0 Discrete-time

(23) systems

y(kh) = Cd x(kh) + Dd u(kh)

State feedback

control

the discrete transfer function is given by Observer

Integral Control

G(z) = Cd (zIn − Ad )−1 Bd + Dd (24) A polynomial

approach

discrete-time

control

Conclusion

State space

Recall Laplace & Z-transform representations

(SEM)

Introduction

Modelling of

dynamical

systems

H(s) to state space H(z) to state space

Properties

Discrete-time

systems

X X

U = den(s) U = den(z) State feedback

Y Y control

X = num(s) X = num(z)

Observer

Integral Control

approach

Y = CX + DU Yk = CXk + DUk Further in

discrete-time

control

Conclusion

Y (s) = C[sI − A]−1 B + D U(s) Y (z) = C[zI − F ]−1 G + D U(z)

| {z } | {z }

H(s) H(z)

State space

Solution of state space equations - discrete representations

(SEM)

case O.Sename

Introduction

The state xk , solution of system xk +1 = Ad xk with initial Modelling of

condition x0 , is given by dynamical

systems

Properties

x1 = Ad x0 (25)

Discrete-time

x2 = A2d x0 (26) systems

State feedback

xn = And x0 (27) control

Observer

A polynomial

approach

x1 = Ad x0 + Bd u0 (28)

Further in

x2 = A2d x0 + Ad Bd u0 + Bd u1 (29) discrete-time

control

n−1 Conclusion

xn = And x0 + ∑ An−1−i

d Bd ui (30)

i=0

State space

State space analysis (discrete-time systems) representations

(SEM)

Stability O.Sename

dynamical

systems

Controllability definition Properties

Discrete-time

Definition systems

Given two states x0 and x1 , the system (22) is controllable State feedback

control

if there exist K1 > 0 and a sequence of control samples

Observer

u0 , u1 , . . . , uK1 , such that xk takes the values x0 for k = 0

Integral Control

and x1 for k = K1 . A polynomial

approach

discrete-time

control

Definition Conclusion

The system (22) is said to be completely observable if

every initial state x(0) can be determined from the

observation of y(k) over a finite number of sampling

periods.

State space

State space analysis (2) representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Controllability

Introduction

The system is controllable iff

Modelling of

dynamical

C⌈ (A = rg[Bd Ad Bd . . . An−1

d Bd ] =n systems

d ,Bd )

Properties

Discrete-time

systems

Observability State feedback

control

The system is observable iff

Observer

Integral Control

O(Ad ,Cd ) = rg[Cd Cd Ad . . . Cd An−1 T

d ] =n A polynomial

approach

Further in

discrete-time

Duality control

(proof. . . )

Controllability of (Ad , Bd ) ⇔ Observability of (BdT , ATd ).

(proof. . . )

State space

State feedback representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

A state feedback controller for a continuous-time system is:

Modelling of

dynamical

u(t) = −Fx(t) (31) systems

Properties

systems

When the system is SISO, it corresponds to : State feedback

u(t) = −f1 x1 − f2 x2 − . . . − fn xn with F = [f1 , f2 , . . . , fn ]. control

Observer

When the system is MIMO we have

Integral Control

A polynomial

u1 x1 approach

u2 f11 . . . f1n

.. ..

x2

Further in

.. = . . .. discrete-time

control

. .

fm1 . . . fmn Conclusion

um xn

State space

State feedback (2) representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

Using state feedback controllers (31), we get in Modelling of

dynamical

closed-loop (for simplicity D = 0) systems

Properties

ẋ(t) = (A − BF )x(t), Discrete-time

(32)

y(t) = Cx(t) systems

State feedback

control

and the stability (and dynamics) of the closed-loop system Observer

is then given by the eigenvalues of A − BF . Integral Control

For discrete-time system we get: A polynomial

approach

x(k + 1) = (A − BF )x(k), Further in

(33) discrete-time

y(k) = Cx(k) control

Conclusion

State space

State feedback (3) representations

(SEM)

Modelling of

u(t) = −Fx(t) + Gr (t) (34) dynamical

systems

or u(k) = −Fx(k) + Gr (k) (35) Properties

Discrete-time

G is a m × p real matrix. Then the closed-loop transfer systems

control

Observer

GCL (s) = C(sIn − A + BF )−1BG (36) Integral Control

A polynomial

G is chosen to ensure a unitary steady-state gain as: approach

Further in

discrete-time

G = [C(−A + BF )−1B]−1 (37) control

Conclusion

⋆ For discrete-time system:

State space

Pole placement control representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

Modelling of

dynamical

systems

Properties

Proposition Discrete-time

Let a linear system given by A, B, and let γi , i = 1, ..., n , a systems

State feedback

set of complex elements (i.e. the desired poles of the control

closed-loop system). There exists a state feedback control Observer

u = −Fx such that the poles of the closed-loop system are Integral Control

approach

Further in

discrete-time

control

Conclusion

State space

Why state feedback and not output feedback? representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

1 Modelling of

Example: G(s) = s2 −s dynamical

systems

Consider the canonical form.

Properties

Case of output feedback : u = −Ly

Discrete-time

Then ẋ(t) = (A − BLC)x(t) systems

control

PBF (s) = s2 − s − L. The closed-loop system cannot be Observer

stabilized. Integral Control

Case of state feedback : u = −Fx A polynomial

Let F = [f1 , f2 ]. Then PBF (s) = s2 + (−1 + f2)s + f1 approach

Further in

So we can choose any F . For instance f1 = 1, f2 = 3 gives discrete-time

Conclusion

State space

Pole placement control (1) representations

(SEM)

0 1 0 ... 0 0 Introduction

0 0 1 0 ... ..

..

. Modelling of

.. .. . . .. dynamical

A= . . . . . , B= .. and systems

.

.. Properties

0 . 0 1 0

Discrete-time

−a0 −a1 . . . . . . −an−1 1 systems

State feedback

C= c0 c1 ... cn−1 . control

Let F = [ f1 f2 . . . fn ] Observer

A polynomial

0 1 0 ... 0 approach

0 0 1 0 ...

Further in

discrete-time

.

.. .

.. .. .. .. control

A − BF = . . .

Conclusion

..

0 . 0 1

−a0 − f1 −a1 − f2 . . . . . . −an−1 − fn

(39)

State space

Pole placement control (2) representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

dynamical

(s − γ1 )(s − γ2 )...(s − γn ) = sn + αn−1 sn−1 + . . . + α1 s + α0 systems

Discrete-time

systems

fi = −ai−1 + αi−1 , i = 1, .., n State feedback

control

ensures that the poles of A − BF are {γi }, i = 1, n Observer

approach

system under canonical form. Further in

Use F=acker(A,B,P) where P is the set of desired discrete-time

control

closed-loop poles. Conclusion

State space

Pole placement control (3) representations

(SEM)

2. Calculate C = [B, AB, . . . , An−1 B]. Modelling of

−1 dynamical

qn systems

q1

..

qn A Properties

−1

Note C = . . Define T =

.. Discrete-time

. systems

qn

qn An−1 State feedback

control

3. Note Ā = T −1 AT and B̄ = T −1B (which are under the Observer

controllable canonical form) Integral Control

4. Choose the desired closed-loop poles and define the A polynomial

approach

desired closed-loop characteristic polynomial:

sn + αn−1 sn−1 + . . . + α1 s + α0

Further in

discrete-time

control

5. Calculate the state feedback u = −F̄ x with:

Conclusion

f̄i = −ai−1 + αi−1 , i = 1, .., n

6. Calculate (for the original system):

u = −Fx, with F = F̄ T −1

State space

Observer representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

Modelling of

Problem: To implement a state feedback control, the dynamical

systems

measurement of all the state variables is necessary. If this Properties

is not available, we will use a state estimation through a Discrete-time

so-called Observer. systems

control

Observer

˙

x̂(t) = Ax̂(t) + Bu(t) − L(C x̂(t) − y(t))

(40) Integral Control

x̂0 A polynomial

approach

where x̂(t) ∈Rn is the estimated state of x(t) and L is the Further in

discrete-time

n × p constant observer gain matrix to be designed. control

Conclusion

State space

Observer representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Th estimated error, e(t) := x(t) − x̂(t), satisfies:

Introduction

ė(t) = (A − LC)e(t) (41) Modelling of

dynamical

systems

If L is designed such that A − LC is stable, then x̂ (t) Properties

converges asymptotically towards x(t). Discrete-time

systems

Proposition State feedback

control

(40) is an observer for system (2) if and only if the pair

Observer

(C,A) is observable, i.e. Integral Control

A polynomial

rank(O) = n approach

Further in

discrete-time

C control

CA

Conclusion

where O = .. .

.

CAn−1

State space

Observer design representations

(SEM)

In order to use the acker Matlab function, we will use the Modelling of

dynamical

duality property between observability and controllability, systems

i.e. : Properties

systems

Then there exists LT such that the eigenvalues of State feedback

AT − C T LT can be randomly chosen. As control

Integral Control

stable.

A polynomial

Matlab : use L=acker(A’,C’,Po)’ where Po approach

discrete-time

Remark : usually the observer poles are chosen around 5 control

important to avoid that the observer makes the closed-loop

system slower.

State space

Observer-based control representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Modelling of

dynamical

u(t) = −F x̂(t) + Gr (t) (42) systems

Properties

We then need to study the stability of the complete Discrete-time

systems

closed-loop system, using the extended state:

State feedback

T control

xe (t) = x(t) e(t) Observer

Integral Control

The closed-loop system with observer (40) and control A polynomial

approach

(42) is:

Further in

discrete-time

A − BF BF BG control

ẋe (t) = xe (t) + r (t) (43)

0 A − LC 0 Conclusion

State space

Separation principle representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

Modelling of

dynamical

The characteristic polynomial of the extended system is: systems

Properties

det(sIn − A + BF ) × det(sIn − A + LC) Discrete-time

systems

State feedback

If the observer and the control are designed separately control

then the closed-loop system with the dynamic Observer

measurement feedback is stable, given that the control and Integral Control

approach

can be obtained directly from them.

Further in

This corresponds to the so-called separation principle. discrete-time

control

Conclusion

State space

Stabilisation/ Detectability representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

Modelling of

dynamical

systems

Properties

Discrete-time

When the linear system (2) is not completely controllable systems

or observable, it is then important to study the stability of State feedback

control

the non controllable and non observable modes.

Observer

Use ctrbf and obsvf Matlab commands Integral Control

A polynomial

approach

Further in

discrete-time

control

Conclusion

State space

Integral Control representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

A state feedback controller may not allow to reject the Modelling of

effects of disturbances (particularly of input disturbances). dynamical

systems

A very useful method consists in adding an integral term to Properties

ensure a unitary static closed-loop gain . Discrete-time

systems

Considered system:

State feedback

( control

ẋ(t) = Ax(t) + Bu(t) + Ed (t), x(0) = x0 Observer

(44)

y(t) = Cx(t) Integral Control

A polynomial

approach

where d is the disturbance. Further in

The objective is to keep y close to a reference signal r , discrete-time

control

even in the presence of d , i.e to keep r − y asymptotically Conclusion

stable.

State space

Integral Control representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

The method consists in extending the system by adding a Modelling of

new state variable: dynamical

systems

Properties

ż(t) = r (t) − y(t) Discrete-time

systems

and to use a new state feedback: State feedback

control

Observer

u(t) = −Fx(t) − Hz(t)

Integral Control

We get A polynomial

approach

Further in

ẋ(t) A − BF BH x 0 E discrete-time

= + r (t) + d (t) control

ż(t) −C 0 z 1 0

Conclusion

State space

Integral control scheme representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

The complete structure has the following form: Modelling of

dynamical

systems

Properties

Discrete-time

systems

State feedback

control

Observer

Integral Control

A polynomial

approach

discrete-time

becomes: control

State space

Equivalence RST controller and representations

(SEM)

observer-based O.Sename

Introduction

Modelling of

dynamical

The use of an observer-based controller is equivalent to systems

Discrete-time

systems

−1

u(s) = −F (sIn − A + BF + LC) Ly(s) State feedback

control

−1

+[In − F (sIn − A + BF + LC) B]Gr (s) Observer

Integral Control

which corresponds to a two-degrees of freedom controller

A polynomial

approach

R(s) T (s)

u(s) = − y(s) + r (s) Further in

discrete-time

S(s) S(s) control

State space

About sampling period and time response representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Influence of the sampling period on the time response

Introduction

Modelling of

dynamical

systems

Properties

Discrete-time

systems

State feedback

control

Observer

Integral Control

A polynomial

approach

Further in

discrete-time

Impose a maximal time response to a discrete system is control

equivalent to place the poles inside a circle defined by the Conclusion

The more the poles are close to zero, the more the system

is fast.

State space

Frequency analysis representations

(SEM)

As in the continuous time, the Bode diagram can also be O.Sename

used.

Introduction

Example with sampling Time Modelling of

Te = 1s ⇔ fe = 1Hz ⇔ we = 2π ): dynamical

systems

Properties

Discrete-time

systems

State feedback

control

Observer

Integral Control

A polynomial

approach

Further in

discrete-time

Note that, in our case, the Bode is cut at the pulse w = π . control

State space

Frequency analysis representations

(SEM)

As in the continuous time, the Bode diagram can also be O.Sename

used.

Introduction

Example with sampling Time Modelling of

Te = 1s ⇔ fe = 1Hz ⇔ we = 2π ): dynamical

systems

Properties

Discrete-time

systems

State feedback

control

Observer

Integral Control

A polynomial

approach

Further in

discrete-time

Note that, in our case, the Bode is cut at the pulse w = π . control

Sampling ↔ Limitations

Recall the Shannon theorem that impose the sampling

frequency at least 2 times higher that the system

State space

About sampling period and robustness representations

(SEM)

dynamical

systems

Properties

Discrete-time

systems

State feedback

control

Observer

Integral Control

A polynomial

approach

Further in

But reducing the sampling time modify poles discrete-time

control

location. . . Poles and zeros become closer to the limit of

Conclusion

the unit circle ⇒ can introduce instability (decrease

robustness).

⇒ Sampling influences stability and robustness

⇒ Over sampling increase noise sensitivity

State space

Zeros representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

dynamical

faster than one with no origin zeros. In the time domain a systems

Properties

zero at the origin induces a sample advance.

Discrete-time

systems

State feedback

control

Observer

Integral Control

A polynomial

approach

Further in

discrete-time

control

Conclusion

State space

Stability representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

Modelling of

dynamical

systems

Recall Properties

A linear continuous feedback control system is stable if all Discrete-time

poles of the closed-loop transfer function T (s) lie in the left systems

control

The Z-plane is related to the S-plane by Observer

z = e−sTe = e(σ +j ω )Te . Hence Integral Control

A polynomial

|z| = eσ Te and ∠z = ω Te approach

Further in

discrete-time

control

Conclusion

State space

Stability (cont’d) representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

Jury criteria

Modelling of

The denominator polynomial dynamical

systems

(den(z) = a0 z n + a1 z n−1 + · · · + an = 0) has all its roots Properties

inside the unit circle if all the first coefficients of the odd Discrete-time

row are positive. systems

State feedback

an control

b = a0 − an Observer

1 a0 a1 a2 ... an−k . . . an 0 a0

Integral Control

2 an an−1 an−2 ... ak ... a0 an

b1 = a1 − an−1 A polynomial

3 b0 b1 b2 ... bn−1 aapproach

0

2 bn−1 bn−2 bn−3 ... b0 aFurther

n in

.. .. bk = ak − an−k discrete-time

. . acontrol

0

2n + 1 b

Conclusion

s0 ck = bk − bn−1−k n−1

b0

State space

Example representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Stability

Find the stability region of D(z) = z 2 + a1 z + a2 Introduction

Modelling of

dynamical

systems

Properties

Discrete-time

systems

State feedback

control

Observer

Integral Control

A polynomial

approach

Further in

discrete-time

control

Conclusion

State space

Example representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Stability

Find the stability region of D(z) = z 2 + a1 z + a2 Introduction

Modelling of

dynamical

Solution systems

Properties

Discrete-time

systems

1 1>0 a1 a2

State feedback

2 a2 a1 1 control

5 1−a22

> 0? approach

Further in

discrete-time

hence, control

Conclusion

1 − a22 > 0

(1 + a2)2 > a21

State space

How to get a discrete controller representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

First way

Introduction

dynamical

systems

◮ Design a discrete-time controller

Properties

◮ Derive the difference equation Discrete-time

systems

State feedback

Second way control

Observer

◮ Design a continuous-time controller Integral Control

approach

time (c2d) Further in

discrete-time

◮ Derive the difference equation control

Conclusion

Now the question is how to implement the computed

controller on a real-time (embedded) system, and what are

the precautions to take before?

State space

representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

Modelling of

dynamical

systems

Properties

Implementation Discrete-time

systems

State feedback

characteristics control

Observer

Integral Control

A polynomial

approach

Further in

discrete-time

control

Conclusion

State space

Anti-aliasing & Sampling representations

(SEM)

Anti-aliasing O.Sename

dynamical

Then, after the A/D converter, the signal is down-sampled systems

Properties

to the frequency used by the controller. Remember that

Discrete-time

the pre-filter introduce phase shift. systems

State feedback

Sampling frequency choice control

Integral Control

the desired speed of the closed loop system. A rule of

A polynomial

thumb is that one should sample 4 − 10 times per rise time approach

Tr of the closed loop system. Further in

discrete-time

control

Tr

Nsample = ≈ 4 − 10 Conclusion

Te

where Te is the sampling period, and Nsample the number

of samples.

State space

Delay representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Problematic

Introduction

Sampled theory assume presence of clock that

Modelling of

synchronizes all measurements and control signal. Hence dynamical

systems

in a computer based control there always is delays (control

Properties

delay, computational delay, I/O latency). Discrete-time

systems

Origins State feedback

control

There are several reasons for delay apparition

Observer

◮ Execution time (code) Integral Control

approach

◮ Interrupt Further in

discrete-time

◮ Communication delay control

Conclusion

◮ Data dependencies

Hence the control delay is not constant. The delay

introduce a phase shift ⇒ Instability!

State space

Delay (cont’d) representations

(SEM)

Introduction

◮

Modelling of

ϕw0 is the phase at the crossover frequency w0 , i.e. dynamical

systems

|G(jw0 )| = 1 Properties

◮ Then the delay margin is Discrete-time

systems

PM π State feedback

DM = [s] control

180w0 Observer

Integral Control

A polynomial

Exercise: compute delay margin for these 3 cases approach

Further in

discrete-time

control

Conclusion

State space

Delay (cont’d) representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Modelling of

dynamical

systems

Properties

Discrete-time

systems

State feedback

control

Observer

Integral Control

A polynomial

approach

Further in

discrete-time

control

Conclusion

State space

Delay (cont’d) representations

(SEM)

Modelling of

◮ Minimize the delay (case B - Minimal control delay) dynamical

systems

◮ Compensate it off-line Properties

◮ Make the controller robust (case A - static scheduling) Discrete-time

systems

◮ Compensate on-line State feedback

control

Integral Control

LOOP A polynomial

%%% At each clock interrup

approach

ADin Further in

discrete-time

CalculateOutput control

DAout Conclusion

UpdateStates

IncTime %%% Evaluate remaining tim

WaitUntilTe

END

State space

Delay (cont’d) representations

(SEM)

Exercise O.Sename

Modelling of

x(k + 1) = Fx(k) + Gy(k) dynamical

systems

Discrete-time

systems

State feedback

control

Observer

Integral Control

A polynomial

approach

Further in

discrete-time

control

Conclusion

State space

Delay (cont’d) representations

(SEM)

Exercise O.Sename

Modelling of

x(k + 1) = Fx(k) + Gy(k) dynamical

systems

Discrete-time

systems

State feedback

control

Observer

LOOP

Integral Control

ADin(y); A polynomial

%%% CalculateOutput approach

u := u1 + D*y; Further in

discrete-time

DAout(u) Note that such a structure is not

control

Conclusion

u1 := C*x; motor)

%%% Wait for the next

State space

Quantification representations

(SEM)

Effects O.Sename

Modelling of

◮ Limit cycles dynamical

systems

Properties

Example (stable for K<2) Discrete-time

systems

State feedback

control

0.25

H(z) = Observer

(z − 1)(z − 0.5) Integral Control

A polynomial

approach

Further in

discrete-time

control

Conclusion

State space

Quantification (cont’d) representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Results Introduction

Modelling of

dynamical

systems

Properties

Discrete-time

systems

State feedback

control

Observer

Integral Control

A polynomial

approach

Further in

discrete-time

control

Conclusion

State space

Quantification (cont’d) representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Results Introduction

Modelling of

dynamical

systems

Properties

Discrete-time

systems

State feedback

control

Observer

Integral Control

A polynomial

approach

Further in

discrete-time

control

Conclusion

State space

Discretisation representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

it from continuous-time to discrete-time, i.e. Modelling of

dynamical

systems

A/D + algorithm + D/A ≈ G(s)

Properties

Discrete-time

To obtain this, few methods exists that approach the systems

control

Recall Observer

Integral Control

A polynomial

z −1 approach

s = Further in

Te discrete-time

control

z −1

s = Conclusion

zTe

2 z −1

s =

Te z + 1

State space

Conclusion representations

(SEM)

O.Sename

Introduction

Modelling of

dynamical

systems

Properties

◮ A state space approach to pole placement control Discrete-time

systems

◮ A similar design can be done using a polynomial

State feedback

approach control

Observer

◮ Continuous but directly extended to discrete-time

Integral Control

systems.

A polynomial

approach

Further in

discrete-time

control

Conclusion

## Bien plus que des documents.

Découvrez tout ce que Scribd a à offrir, dont les livres et les livres audio des principaux éditeurs.

Annulez à tout moment.