Justin Teo
*
, Jonathan P. How
**
MIT Aerospace Controls Laboratory
Eugene Lavretsky
with subscript to
indicate the th element of the vector x) are variables for
numeric quantities.
II. EQUIVALENCE BETWEEN APPROXIMATE DYNAMIC
INVERSION AND PI CONTROL
A. Approximate Dynamic Inversion for Single Input Systems
Here, the ADI method [4] for single input systems is
stated with a minor generalization, together with the main
result. The proof in [4] applies with appropriate (trivial)
substitutions, and will not be replicated here.
Consider an nth order singleinput nonafneincontrol
system of relative degree , expressed in normal form
x(t) = f(x(t), z(t), u(t)), x(0) = x
0
,
z(t) = g(x(t), z(t), u(t)), z(0) = z
0
,
(1a)
where x(t) = [x
1
(t), x
2
(t), . . . , x
(t)]
T
R
,
f(x(t), z(t), u(t)) =
_
_
x
2
(t)
.
.
.
x
(t)
f(x(t), z(t), u(t))
_
_
R
, (1b)
for (x(t), z(t), u(t)) D
x
D
z
D
u
, and the sets D
x
R
, D
z
R
n
and D
u
R are domains containing the
origins. Here, [x
T
(t), z
T
(t)]
T
denotes the state vector of the
system, u(t) is the control input, and f : D
x
D
z
D
u
R,
g: D
x
D
z
D
u
R
n
are continuously differentiable
functions of their arguments. Furthermore, assume that
f
u
is bounded away from zero for (x(t), z(t), u(t))
D
x
D
z
D
u
, where is a compact set. That is, there exists
b
0
> 0 such that 
f
u
 b
0
for all (x(t), z(t), u(t)) .
Note that 
f
u
 b
0
> 0 implies sign
_
f
u
_
{1, +1} is a
constant. In addition, assume that the function f cannot be
inverted explicitly with respect to u.
It is desired for x(t) to track the states of a stable th
order linear reference model described in the controllable
canonical form
x
r
(t) = A
r
x
r
(t) +B
r
r(t), x
r
(0) = x
r0
, (2a)
where x
r
(t) = [x
r1
(t), x
r2
(t), . . . , x
r
(t)]
T
R
, and the
Hurwitz A
r
and column vector B
r
have the form
A
r
=
_
_
0 1 0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0 0 1
a
r0
a
r1
a
r(1)
_
_
, B
r
=
_
_
0
.
.
.
0
b
r
_
_
. (2b)
Here, r(t) is a continuously differentiable reference input
signal, and x
r
(t) is the state of the reference model.
Let e(t) = x(t) x
r
(t) R
v
be a compact subset of R
v
, where R
v
D
v
denotes the
region of attraction of the autonomous system
dv
d
= sign
_
f
u
_
f(0, e
0
, z
0
, v + h(0, e
0
, z
0
)).
Then for each compact subset
e,z
D
e,z
, there exists a
positive constant
e,z
, u
0
h(0, e
0
, z
0
)
v
, and (0,
), system (1),
(6) has a unique solution x
(t) = x
r
(t)+
O() holds uniformly for t [T, ).
A proof of Theorem 1 is provided in [4]. In summary,
Theorem 1 states that when regularity assumptions on the
system dynamics are satised to ensure existence and unique
ness of solutions, and system (1) is minimum phase and
controllable, the ADI control signal u(t) approaches that of
the exact dynamic inversion solution, and the system state
x(t) approaches and maintains within O() of the reference
model state x
r
(t) for a sufciently small . See [4] for ways
to verify the assumptions and further discussions.
B. Equivalent PI Controller
Here, we recall the main result of [6], [9], which extends
trivially for the above ADI generalization.
Lemma 1: For every Approximate Dynamic Inversion
controller (6) with u(0) = u
0
, there exists a linear
ProportionalIntegral model reference controller realization
u(t) =
1
sign
_
f
u
__
c
T
e(t)
_
t
0
c
T
A
e
e() d u
0
_
,
(8)
where u
0
= c
T
e(0) + sign
_
f
u
_
u
0
.
The proof is available in [9], using similar ideas from [6].
The key is to observe that the relations
f(x(t), z(t), u(t)) = c
T
x(t), (9)
c
T
_
A
r
x
r
(t) +B
r
r(t)
_
= c
T
x
r
(t), (10)
follow from (1) and (2) respectively.
It can be seen that the result (8) is a PI controller acting
on the error between the system states and the states of the
reference model. Furthermore, observe that when expressed
in the error coordinates, e(t), the PI controller is not ex
plicitly dependent on A
r
that species the reference model
dynamics, in contrast to the form in [6]. This characteristic
is the result of introducing the independent matrix A
e
for
error dynamics specication. From (8), it is apparent that
the PI controller attempts to achieve (3), which is equivalent
to achieving (5).
The signicance of this result is threefold:
1) The PI controller allows a very simple exact realization
of the ADI control law. Furthermore, no feedback of
z(t) is required.
2) The PI controller is a linear realization of a (in general)
nonlinear control law.
3) The PI controller realization is independent of the
nonlinear function f(x(t), z(t), u(t)) in (1b), except
for the sign of the control effectiveness, sign
_
f
u
_
.
The existence of a linear realization of a nonlinear control
law hinges critically on the structure of the underlying
system, reference model, error dynamics and control law.
The extension to multiinput nonafneincontrol systems is
straightforward [9]. In [6], [10], the equivalent PI controller
is compared against the ADI variants in [11], [12] respec
tively. Because the PI controller is an exact realization, while
the ADI variants in [11], [12] are approximate realizations,
the PI realization achieves/exceeds the tracking performance
of these ADI variants.
III. NONEQUIVALENCE IN PERTURBED SYSTEMS
Consider the scenario where the ADI control law is
designed for a nominal system, but applied to a perturbed
system. As stated above, a PI controller of the form (8) can
be derived from the ADI control law (6). It is clear that
when applied to the exact system (1), the PI controller (8)
is equivalent to the ADI control law (6) in the sense that
they produce identical time responses for the same excitation
and initial conditions. As will be shown in Section IV,
the equivalence only holds for the time response and not,
in particular, to robustness properties. Equivalence in the
time response also does not hold (in general) when these
controllers are applied to a perturbed system. In particular,
it is shown that this equivalence does not hold (in general)
in the presence of:
1) disturbances at plant input/output,
2) perturbations of nonlinear function f(x(t), z(t), u(t))
in (1b), or
3) a single time delay at plant input/output.
The same conclusions hold for the multiinput case [9]. For
notational convenience in the sequel, dene
= sign
_
f
u
_
{1, 1}.
A. Disturbances at Plant Input/Output
Let the system to be controlled be dened by (1) with
u(t) = u
c
(t) + d
i
(t), y(t) =
_
x(t)
z(t)
_
+
_
d
xo
(t)
d
zo
(t)
_
, (11)
where u
c
(t) R is the control signal, d
i
(t) R is the input
disturbance, y(t) R
n
is the measurement, d
xo
(t) R
and d
zo
(t) R
n
are output disturbances acting on x(t)
and z(t) respectively. Dene signal h(t) R as
h(t) = c
T
_
A
r
x
r
(t) +B
r
r(t) +A
e
(e(t) +d
xo
(t))
_
.
The ADI control law applied to the system with input and
output disturbances dened by (11) is then given by
u
c
(t) =
_
f(x(t) +d
xo
(t), z(t) +d
zo
(t), u
c
(t)) +h(t)
_
.
(12)
The PI controller applied to the same system is given by
u
c
(t) =
c
T
_
e(t) +d
xo
(t)
A
e
_
t
0
(e() +d
xo
()) d
_
,
which, using (9) and (10), can be shown to be equivalent to
the following control law
u
c
(t) =
_
f(x(t), z(t), u
c
(t) + d
i
(t))
+c
T
d
xo
(t) + h(t)
_
. (13)
It can be seen that, in general, the two controllers given
by (12) and (13) are equivalent only when d
i
(t) = 0,
d
xo
(t) = 0, and d
zo
(t) = 0 for all t 0.
B. Delayfree Perturbation of System
If the system to be controlled is dened by (1), but with
f(x(t), z(t), u(t)) perturbed to f
p
(x(t), z(t), u(t)), the ADI
control law remains unaltered as in (6). With
h(t) = c
T
_
A
r
x
r
(t) +B
r
r(t) +A
e
e(t)
_
,
the ADI control law can be rewritten as
u(t) =
_
f(x(t), z(t), u(t)) + h(t)
_
. (14)
The PI controller, in contrast, can be shown to be equivalent
to
u(t) =
_
f
p
(x(t), z(t), u(t)) + h(t)
_
. (15)
Observe that (15) differs from (14) in the nonlinear function
f
p
(x(t), z(t), u(t)). The independence of the PI controller
from the nonlinear function renders it insensitive to delay
free perturbations of f(x(t), z(t), u(t)). It is clear that for
the system described by (1) with f(x(t), z(t), u(t)) replaced
by f
p
(x(t), z(t), u(t)), and controlled by (15), Theorem 1
applies unaltered. This implies that for all delayfree per
turbations described by f
p
(x(t), z(t), u(t)), there exists a
sufciently small positive for which the PI controller
stabilizes the system.
C. A Single Time Delay at Plant Input/Output
Here, we consider the case where there is a single delay
present at the plant input/output. To simplify the exposition,
we rst state a fact which is a property of timeinvariant
systems. Let T
d
> 0 be the delay interval, and let signal
u(t) be dened for t [T
d
, 0]. Let the inputdelayed time
invariant system with input u(t), output y(t), and state x(t),
be dened by
x(t) = f(x(t), u(t T
d
)), x(0) = x
0
,
y(t) = g(x(t), u(t T
d
)).
(16)
x(t)=f(x(t),v(t))
w(t)=g(x(t),v(t))
e
sT
d
In
i
u
v w
y   
x(t)=f(x(t),v(t))
w(t)=g(x(t),v(t))
e
sT
d
Ino
u
v w
y   
_
_
_
Fig. 1. A single delay at the input/output commutes with a timeinvariant
system.
Let the outputdelayed timeinvariant system with input u(t),
output y(t), and state x(t), be dened by
_
0 1 0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0 0 1
a
0
a
1
a
(1)
_
_
, c =
_
_
0
.
.
.
0
1
_
_
. (18b)
A. Input Sensitivity Function
First, we show that the closed loop system controlled by
the PI controller (8) has a superior input sensitivity function
compared to that controlled by the ADI control law (6). The
PI controller (8) applied to this system can be written as
u
PI
(t) = sign(b)c
T
_
x(t) x
r
(t) A
e
(x(t) x
r
(t))
_
,
(19)
where A
e
denes the error dynamics (3) and x
r
(t) is the
state of the reference model (2).
Taking Laplace transforms of (18) and (19) yields
x(s) = b(sI A)
1
cu(s),
u
PI
(s) =
sign(b)
s
c
T
(sI A
e
)(x(s) x
r
(s)),
respectively. Breaking the loop at the input to the system,
the input loop transfer function is then
L
PI
(s) =
b
s
c
T
(sI A
e
)(sI A)
1
c. (20)
The ADI controller (6) applied to the same system is
u
ADI
(t) = sign(b)c
T
_
Ax(t) + bcu
ADI
(t)
A
r
x
r
(t) B
r
r(t) A
e
(x(t) x
r
(t))
_
,
with Laplace transform
u
ADI
(s) =
sign(b)
s +b
c
T
_
(A A
e
)x(s)
+ (A
e
A
r
)x
r
(s) B
r
r(s)
_
.
The input loop transfer function is then
L
ADI
(s) =
b
s +b
c
T
(A A
e
)(sI A)
1
c. (21)
The corresponding input sensitivity functions are
S
PI
(s) = (1 + L
PI
(s))
1
, S
ADI
(s) = (1 + L
ADI
(s))
1
.
The following establishes a key relationship between the
input sensitivity functions of identical systems controlled by
the ADI and PI controllers.
Proposition 2: For any (0, ),
S
PI
(s) =
s
s +b
S
ADI
(s). (22)
For any (0,
), where
is dened in Theorem 1,
S
PI
(s)
< S
ADI
(s)
. (23)
Proof: From (20), we have
1 + L
PI
(s) =
s +bc
T
(sI A
e
)(sI A)
1
c
s
,
and from (21),
1 + L
ADI
(s) =
s +b +bc
T
(A A
e
)(sI A)
1
c
s +b
=
s +bc
T
_
I + (A A
e
)(sI A)
1
_
c
s +b
.
Factoring out (sI A)
1
on the right and canceling terms,
yields
1 + L
ADI
(s) =
s +bc
T
(sI A
e
)(sI A)
1
c
s +b
=
s
s +b
(1 + L
PI
(s)),
which proves (22) for any (0, ).
Next, observe from Theorem 1 that any choice of
(0,
and S
ADI
(s)
= S
PI
(j
0
).
From (22), at frequency
0
, we have
S
ADI
(j
0
) =
1 j
b
S
PI
(j
0
) > S
PI
(s)
.
Since S
ADI
(s)
S
ADI
(j
0
), (23) is proved.
Observe that S(s)
m
=
_
(L(j
c
) mod 2)
_
},
with the convention that the inmum of an empty set is
+. Note that implicit in the above denition is that
m
[, ).
Here, we show that as 0, the time delay margin of the
system controlled by the PI equivalent, TM
PI
, approaches
zero. This means that if there are any (nonzero) nite time
delays present within the loop, the system can be destabilized
if is made too small.
Proposition 3: The time delay margin of the closed loop
system stabilized by the PI controller (8) satisfy
lim
0
TM
PI
= 0.
Proof: Since the closed loop system is stable by
assumption, the phase margin satisfy
m
[0, ) if there
exists at least one real
c
such that L
PI
(j
c
) = 1, ie.,
that there is at least one gain crossover point. Hence it is
sufcient to show that when 0, there exists a solution
c
R satisfying L
PI
(j
c
) = 1 such that 
c
 .
From (20), it can be shown that L
PI
(s) expands to
L
PI
(s) =
b
s
s
+ a
e(1)
s
1
+ + a
e1
s + a
e0
s
a
(1)
s
1
a
1
s a
0
,
:=
b
s
p(s)
q(s)
.
It can be seen that since L
PI
(s) is strictly proper, and has a
pole at s = 0, we have that
lim
L
PI
(j) = 0, lim
0
L
PI
(j) = .
By the continuity of L
PI
(j) with , there must exist a
real
c
that satisfy
L
PI
(j
c
) =
b

c

p(j
c
)
q(j
c
)
= 1.
Rearranging terms and taking limits, we have
lim
0
= 0 =
b

c

p(j
c
)
q(j
c
)
. (24)
Observe that p(s) is the characteristic polynomial of A
e
.
Since A
e
is Hurwitz, all roots of p(s) = 0 have negative
real parts, so that none lies on the j axis and R,
p(j) = 0. Since p(s) and q(s) are of the same order, we
must have from (24) that 
c
 .
This shows that there is a practical lower bound of when
implementing the equivalent PI controller. In contrast, for the
limiting case 0, we see from (21) that lim
0
TM
ADI
is dened entirely by
lim
0
L
ADI
(s) = c
T
(A A
e
)(sI A)
1
c,
and does not exhibit the zero delay tolerance characteristic
of the PI controlled system.
V. CONCLUSIONS
An extension of the Approximate Dynamic Inversion
(ADI) method for minimumphase nonafneincontrol sys
tems was presented that renders the error dynamics inde
pendent of the reference model dynamics. In essence, this
decouples the steady state response specication from the
transient response specication, where the steady state
response is specied by the reference model dynamics while
the transient response is independently specied by the error
dynamics. It was shown that every ADI control law admits
an equivalent linear ProportionalIntegral (PI) controller re
alization that is largely independent of the nonlinearities of
the system.
This equivalence holds only for the time response, and
only when applied to the exact system. In particular, even
when specializing to minimumphase linear timeinvariant
systems, they differ in robustness properties. In terms of the
input sensitivity function, the PI controller was shown to be
more robust than the ADI controller. In terms of timedelay
margin, the ADI controller is superior.
For the practitioner, the choice between implementing the
original ADI control law or PI equivalent lies in whether
a sufciently accurate characterization of the system is
available, or whether time delays are the major limiting factor
in the system. An interesting research topic not specically
linked to the ADI or PI controller is, among all equivalent
controllers, to nd those with superior robustness properties.
VI. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The rst author gratefully acknowledges the support of
DSO National Laboratories, Singapore. Research funded in
part by AFOSR grant FA95500810086.
REFERENCES
[1] S. Devasia, D. Chen, and B. Paden, Nonlinear inversionbased output
tracking, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 41, no. 7, pp. 930 942,
Jul. 1996.
[2] H. K. Khalil, Nonlinear Systems, 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall, 2002.
[3] G. O. Guardabassi and S. M. Savaresi, Approximate linearization via
feedback an overview, Automatica, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 1 15, Jan.
2001.
[4] N. Hovakimyan, E. Lavretsky, and A. Sasane, Dynamic inversion for
nonafneincontrol systems via timescale separation. part I, J. Dyn.
Control Syst., vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 451 465, Oct. 2007.
[5] A. Chakrabortty and M. Arcak, Timescale separation redesigns
for stabilization and performance recovery of uncertain nonlinear
systems, Automatica, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 34 44, Jan. 2009.
[6] J. Teo and J. P. How, Equivalence between approximate dynamic
inversion and proportionalintegral control, in Proc. 47th IEEE Conf.
Decision and Control, Cancun, Mexico, Dec. 2008, pp. 2179 2183.
[7] P. V. Kokotovic and R. Marino, On vanishing stability regions in
nonlinear systems with highgain feedback, IEEE Trans. Autom.
Control, vol. AC31, no. 10, pp. 967 970, Oct. 1986.
[8] H. K. Khalil, Universal integral controllers for minimumphase
nonlinear systems, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 45, no. 3, pp.
490 494, Mar. 2000.
[9] J. Teo and J. P. How, Equivalence between approximate dynamic
inversion and proportionalintegral control, MIT, Cambridge, MA,
Tech. Rep. ACL0801, Sep. 2008, Aerosp. Controls Lab. [Online].
Available: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/42839
[10] J. P. How, J. Teo, and B. Michini, Adaptive ight control experiments
using RAVEN, in Proc. 14th Yale Workshop Adaptive and Learning
Systems, New Haven, CT, Jun. 2008, pp. 205 210.
[11] N. Hovakimyan, E. Lavretsky, and C. Cao, Adaptive dynamic inver
sion via timescale separation, in Proc. 45th IEEE Conf. Decision
and Control, San Diego, CA, Dec. 2006, pp. 1075 1080.
[12] E. Lavretsky and N. Hovakimyan, Adaptive compensation of control
dependent modeling uncertainties using timescale separation, in
Proc. 44th IEEE Conf. Decision and Control & European Control
Conf., Seville, Spain, Dec. 2005, pp. 2230 2235.
[13] C. Cao, V. V. Patel, C. K. Reddy, N. Hovakimyan, E. Lavretsky, and
K. Wise, Are phase and timedelay margins always adversely affected
by highgain? in Proc. AIAA Guidance Navigation and Control Conf.
and Exhibit, Keystone, CO, Aug. 2006, AIAA20066347.
Гораздо больше, чем просто документы.
Откройте для себя все, что может предложить Scribd, включая книги и аудиокниги от крупных издательств.
Отменить можно в любой момент.